ASWB Exam Pass Rates: The 2025 Results and What They Count

The annual ASWB exam pass rates below count first attempts only. These are the 2025 figures — the most recent annual results ASWB has released, and the last full year before the exam changed on August 3, 2026.

2025 first-time pass rates, all ASWB member jurisdictions

Source: ASWB exam pass rates. ASWB reports these as results for individuals taking each exam for the first time in 2025, across all its member jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. ASWB also states that its pass rates are most representative for groups of more than 200 candidates — the Advanced Generalist group, at 117, is smaller than that. Treat that row as directional rather than discarding it.

By the Castleport Test Prep Editorial Team · Last verified September 14, 2026 (annual table, current scoring and exam-version information, and the official report route).

What "75.7%" counts — and the three other numbers people quote

If one page tells you the Clinical pass rate is 75.7% and another says 59%, both can be accurate. They may be counting different things in different years.

Four labels are in circulation, and the difference between them is the denominator — the group or the events the percentage is divided by. Check it before you compare two figures.

ASWB's definitions of first-time and eventual are published in the About the data notes on its historical state map, and in the methodology of the 2022 ASWB Exam Pass Rate Analysis.

One group, four different rates

Illustrative example — these are fictional results, not ASWB data.

Imagine 100 people taking an exam for the first time during a reporting period. Seventy-five pass and 25 do not. Of those 25, twenty take one repeat attempt before the period ends: ten pass and ten do not. The other five have no further attempt during the period. Nobody makes another attempt in this example.

The all-attempt figure is lower than the first-time figure even though more people have passed by the end. It counts 120 attempts, not 100 people. The fifteen people who have not passed by the cutoff are not fifteen people proven never to pass.

This example keeps everyone in one first-attempt cohort. ASWB's historical eventual groups can also include people whose first attempt occurred before the reporting window, so the real first-time and eventual populations need not match.

One thing you cannot do with these numbers: subtract a first-time rate from an eventual rate to work out your chances on a retake. The two rates describe overlapping but different groups of people over a defined window. Getting a real answer to "if I failed once, what happens next?" would take a matched group of candidates followed for a set period; the aggregate rates above do not supply that follow-up.

What is the overall ASWB pass rate?

ASWB's annual table does not publish a single combined figure, and the answer depends on how you combine the five categories. Here is the arithmetic, using ASWB's published counts and rates:

• Simple average of the five published rates: (71.5 + 70.4 + 73.9 + 65.0 + 75.7) ÷ 5 = 71.3%
• Weighted by first-time exams administered: 50,340 first-time exams across all five categories, producing roughly 74.6%

Those are our calculations, not ASWB figures, and the weighted result is approximate because it multiplies published counts by rounded percentages. The roughly 3.3-percentage-point gap between them is the point. A simple average treats the 117-person Advanced Generalist group as equal in weight to the 26,439-person Clinical group. The weighted figure reflects the volume of first-time exams in each category, not a deduplicated count of people across categories. Keep this in mind further down, when you compare two schools or two states — the same trap is waiting there.

A real example: 76% and 56%, same exam, same six months

California's Board of Behavioral Sciences publishes results for the ASWB Clinical exam taken by its own candidates, and it reports first-timers separately from everyone. For January 1 through June 30, 2023, its published total row reads:

1,985 exams taken, 1,116 passed — 56%. Of those, 1,215 were first-timers, and 919 passed — 76%.

Subtract one from the other and the missing piece appears:

The middle row is ours, calculated from the board's own whole numbers rather than from rounded percentages: 1,985 − 1,215 = 770 repeat exams, and 1,116 − 919 = 197 of them passed.

Four limits on that figure, and they matter. It covers one state, one six-month window, and the exam format that has since been retired. And the board's report does not define whether "first timer" means a candidate's first attempt ever or their first attempt in the period. What the example establishes is not a national retake rate — it is why two accurate numbers can be about twenty percentage points apart. The gap is retakes.

The same pattern shows up in the board's more recent reporting. For October through December 2025, it published 1,217 ASWB exams at a 52% pass rate, alongside 653 first-time exams at 73%. (California BBS examination report, January 2026; school report, January–June 2023)

Is there a national version of this? ASWB's current annual web table does not include repeat-attempt or all-attempt rates. An independent analysis by Matt DeCarlo of Open Social Work, published in March 2026, reports adding up 51 U.S. jurisdiction reports for 2024. It reports all-attempt pass rates of 55.4% for Bachelors, 56.9% for Masters and 59.1% for Clinical, with repeat rates near 29% to 34%. That is an independent analysis by a named critic of social work licensing exams, published on an advocacy site, and the author reports that his own Bachelors first-time calculation does not reconcile with ASWB's. These are the author's reported calculations, not totals we have independently reconstructed. We mention them to identify the source of the 55%–59% headline, not as official ASWB summary figures or a substitute for the opening table. The year and U.S. scope also differ from that table. (Open Social Work, March 2026)

So which number belongs to you? If you are sitting for the first time, the first-time column describes that attempt type in the reported year. If you are retaking, it is not the relevant attempt type. The California example has a much lower repeat-attempt rate, but one state's historical results do not establish your own chances on a retake.

One more trap: "87.7% eventually pass"

The 2022 ASWB analysis reported an eventual Clinical pass rate of 87.7% for 2011–2021, against a first-time rate of 76.1% over the same period. Those get quoted as reassurance: almost everyone gets there in the end.

Read the definition again before you lean on it. The eventual figure counts each person once, using their most recent attempt inside that eleven-year window. Somebody who failed in 2019 and passed in 2021 is counted as a pass. Somebody who failed in December 2021 is counted as a fail, even if they passed in March 2022 — the window had closed. It is not a lifetime figure, and it is not the probability that a particular person passes on their second try. (2022 analysis, Clinical findings, printed p. 13)

Is a pass rate the score you need to pass?

No. A pass rate describes how a group of people did. A passing score is the number of correct answers one exam form requires.

ASWB does not publish a single fixed number, because several versions — forms — of each exam are in circulation, and testing specialists adjust how many correct answers each form requires so every candidate meets the same standard. For exams taken on or after August 3, 2026, ASWB says the passing score generally falls between 66 and 78 correct answers out of 110 scored questions. (ASWB exam scoring)

Two consequences worth holding onto. A 74% group pass rate is not a 74% target score — the two percentages measure unrelated things. And scoring 70% on a practice test, is not the same as 70% on a scored, equated exam form.

Do these numbers describe the exam you're taking?

No, and this is the most important thing on the page.

The 2025 table above describes exams built on the 2018 blueprint; ASWB's longer historical series also includes earlier blueprints. Appointments from August 3, 2026 use the 2026 blueprint: 122 questions instead of 170, 110 scored instead of 150, three content areas instead of four, and more three-option items. The four-hour limit did not change. (ASWB, new exam begins August 3; current exam overview)

As of September 14, 2026, ASWB's annual pass-rate page reports 2025 results and does not provide a separate pass rate for the 2026 blueprint.

There is one piece of evidence that bears on the question, and it is worth knowing. The last time ASWB introduced a new blueprint, first-time pass rates dropped. ASWB's own year-by-year figures show the Clinical rate falling from 78.3% in 2017 to 73.2% in 2018, and the Masters rate from 81.2% to 75.5%. ASWB identified the new blueprint as the likely explanation for those declines. Bachelors fell from 77.7% to 69.0% across the same transition — 8.7 percentage points. (2022 analysis, Clinical and Masters findings and Appendix B Table B1, Appendix C Table C1, and Appendix D Table D1)

What that supports is modest: a blueprint change is a plausible reason for a one-year dip in a published rate. It does not support a prediction. The 2026 change involves a different content structure and a different question mix, so it is not the same intervention as 2018. A format change by itself does not tell you whether the pass rate will rise or fall. A page updated in 2026 can still be quoting 2025 results; check the data year, not just the page date.

One further caution for when that number does appear: a full-year 2026 figure will mix exams taken before August 3 with exams taken after. Unless ASWB separates the two periods, a change from 2025 cannot be attributed to the new exam.

Is one ASWB exam harder than the others?

The table cannot answer that. Each category is scored against its own standard for its own group of candidates, and those groups are not comparable. ASWB's category framework distinguishes basic generalist practice at the Bachelors level from advanced clinical practice at the Clinical level, with different education and experience requirements. A higher pass rate describes the outcomes of the group who sat for the exam; it does not isolate how demanding the questions were.

The cohort sizes in the opening table also set limits on the comparison. Ranking five categories by difficulty when the smallest has 117 test-takers and the largest has 26,439 is not analysis. And none of it is a reason to prefer one category — your board decides which exam you are authorized to take. If you are still sorting out which category applies to you, read the exam categories in ASWB's guidebook and follow your board's authorization.

How to find your state's or your school's pass rate

ASWB gives this data away free. Use the jurisdiction section for a state, province or territory, and the degree-program section for a school.

1. Open ASWB's exam pass rates page.
2. Under the jurisdiction section, choose your state, province or territory. You get a PDF covering 2022–2025.
3. Under the second section, choose your state or province first, then your degree program, for the program-level PDF over the same years.

ASWB's separate state and province map is a different resource with older data — its windows are 2011–2021 and 2018–2021. It is useful for definitions and for historical context. It is not the current lookup.

Six checks before you compare two reports

A bad comparison starts with two numbers that were never built the same way.

1. Same exam category. A program may report several categories, or only the one most of its graduates take. Compare Clinical to Clinical.
2. Same period. Match the exam year or observation window. An exam-year result is not the result for that year's graduating class — people test on their own schedule.
3. Population and geography. Read how candidates were linked to the school or the state. In the August 2022 school-report edition, a school's figures include everyone who entered that school's code at registration, and ASWB states that this self-reported data is unverified. In that edition, the state or province comparator means candidates approved to test by that regulator — not where they live, and not where they studied.
4. Counting unit. Work out whether the denominator is people or exam administrations, and whether the row is first-time, repeat, total or eventual.
5. Group size and blanks. ASWB's 2022 reports suppressed groups under 10 to protect privacy, but that is not a universal rule for later reports: an ASWB-issued 2024 school summary publishes groups of nine exam administrations. A blank or a dash is not a zero percent pass rate. ASWB also notes in its school reports that smaller programs will show more year-to-year swing, which makes their numbers harder to read.
6. How the comparator was built. Check whether a benchmark counts individual candidates or averages school percentages. Those two methods give different answers — you saw a roughly 3.3-percentage-point gap between an unweighted and a volume-weighted average near the top of this page. A ten-person program and a hundred-person program count equally in an average of two school rates, but not in a candidate-weighted rate.

The historical definitions and small-program caution come from an ASWB-issued school performance report (August 2022 edition, reporting 2021 data). The later example is ASWB's 2024 school pass-rate summary for Texas A&M University–Commerce, issued in August 2025; it explicitly counts first-time, repeat and total exam administrations. Report designs change between editions, so read the glossary in the PDF you actually download rather than assuming it matches an earlier one.

And a limit on the whole exercise. A program's pass rate describes the candidates linked to that program who tested in those years — their preparation, their timing, their circumstances. It is a reasonable question to ask a school. It is not a measurement of you.

Pass rates by race, age, and primary language

Yes, ASWB's published data shows large differences between demographic groups. Before the numbers, the date:

These are ASWB's published summary figures, labeled 2018 to 2021 and released in August 2022. They are historical summaries, not a 2025 or 2026 demographic breakdown. When you see "45% versus 84%" quoted from that release, this is the source and period label behind it. There is a discrepancy between some of its summary percentages and annual tables, explained just below. ASWB also published a later Clinical analysis using 2018–2022 data, discussed below; the two reports must not be relabeled as the same cohort.

Clinical exam: ASWB's summary labeled 2018–2021

Source: 2022 ASWB analysis, Clinical summary, printed p. 14. These reproduce ASWB's published summary percentages; the first-time and eventual columns describe different groups, not a matched retake cohort.

A source limitation: The first-time summaries do not all reconcile with a candidate-weighted calculation from the report's 2018–2021 annual tables. For example, the Black Clinical counts and rounded rates in Appendix B, Table B2 produce approximately 43.8%, rather than the summary's 45.0%. We retain the published summaries to identify the figures people quote, not as independently reconstructed four-year rates.

The published summaries show the same pattern on the other exams: first-time figures of 85.8% (white) and 44.5% (Black) on Masters, and 76.2% and 33.3% on Bachelors. (Masters summary, printed p. 25; Bachelors summary, printed p. 36)

Clinical exam: ASWB's first-time age and language summaries labeled 2018–2021

Demographic information was self-reported at registration; exam outcomes were not self-reported. Candidates who chose "prefer not to say," or who typed their own answer, were excluded from the relevant demographic analysis, and the available response options changed over the period. The 2022 analysis suppressed groups with fewer than 10 test-takers. (2022 ASWB analysis: methodology, printed pp. 3–5; Clinical age and language summaries, printed pp. 16–17)

What ASWB said, and what it did next

ASWB responded to its own data in August 2022 with a statement from its CEO and Board of Directors that named systemic and institutional racism, specifically anti-Blackness, as central to the disparities, and stated plainly that the results do not reflect on Black candidates' ability to demonstrate competence. That is ASWB's position, attributed to ASWB. (Beyond data: A call to action, August 30, 2022)

It also commissioned follow-up research. A 2024 report by Joy Kim and Michael Joo of Rutgers reviewed licensing-exam disparities across ten professional fields, including social work, and reported racial/ethnic disparities throughout the selected evidence. Its central conclusion is that once individual, institutional and community factors are accounted for, the measured relationship between race and exam outcomes shrinks. That report reviews existing research across professions; it is not a new analysis of ASWB exam data. (Kim & Joo, 2024; ASWB's exam report series; ASWB's research release)

A separate report in that same series, The Effects of Race/Ethnicity on Clinical Exam Outcomes, analyzed 88,678 first-time U.S. Clinical examinees from 2018–2022. It is a later, differently defined study, not an update that turns the 2018–2021 tables above into current-year rates. The authors explicitly describe their modeled relationships as correlational, not causal.

The research above concerns observed disparities and possible contributing factors. It does not by itself settle whether an exam requirement should be retained, changed or removed.

What the timing and study-hour findings can tell you

Two findings in that review concern preparation, but neither establishes an ASWB-specific timetable or study-hour target:

Delay was associated with lower pass rates. In the physical medicine study the review cites, first-time Part I certification candidates who did not delay passed at 91%; after a one-year delay, 68%; after more than two years, 59%. This was a retrospective study of 2010–2014 examinations, not proof that delay itself caused the difference. (Robinson and colleagues, 2016, abstract)

Study hours track with passing. In a study of New York bar candidates retaking the exam, increasing study time was positively associated with passing the second attempt. Following the same people across attempts does not, by itself, prove causation. (AccessLex and the New York State Board of Law Examiners, 2021 research summary)

Neither finding comes from social work data, and neither is a promise. The practical takeaway is to make a realistic preparation schedule and protect the hours you can use — not to rush an exam before you are prepared or before required approval and testing arrangements are in place.

If you didn't pass

About one in four first-time Masters and Clinical candidates did not pass in 2025. Against ASWB's published counts, that works out to roughly 11,800 first attempts across those two categories alone — our arithmetic from ASWB's figures, not an ASWB number. Whatever else is true, this is not a small or unusual group.

Four facts about what happens next, all from ASWB:

• Your unofficial score report, in your ASWBCentral account, breaks your result down by content area. ASWB recommends starting there; use the content-area breakdown to decide what to review.
• ASWB requires at least 90 days between attempts unless a waiting-period waiver is granted.
• You may request a waiver of that wait if your most recent score was within 10 correct answers of passing and your board permits waivers. ASWB lists California and North Dakota as not permitting these waivers. You must wait at least one day after your exam to request one, and you may not use more than two waivers in twelve months for a single exam category.
• Some licensing boards cap the total number of attempts. Yours is the authority on that.

(ASWB, if you fail the exam; 90-day waiver request)

One more thing about timing. If your earlier attempt used the retired 170-question format, your retake will not. Content-area scores from the old four-area structure do not map cleanly onto the current three, so use them as evidence about what you knew, not as a ready-made plan. Use the current content outlines in ASWB's guidebook to organize that review.

Questions people ask about ASWB pass rates

Does ASWB publish pass rates for years before 2025? Yes. Its annual web table currently shows 2025, while its report selectors cover 2022–2025. The 2022 analysis also contains annual category results for 2011–2021 in its appendices. Match the year and rate definition rather than treating the year on a webpage as the year of the data. (Annual report page; historical analysis, appendices)

Do US and Canadian candidates have different pass rates? ASWB's annual table reports all member jurisdictions together, so it does not separate the two countries. To see a single province, download that jurisdiction's report from the selector.

Does ASWB publish how many attempts it takes people to pass? The annual first-time table does not show an attempts-per-person distribution. ASWB school summaries and some board reports publish repeat exam administrations, but that is a different measure. The California example above calculates a repeat-attempt pass rate; it cannot tell you how many attempts each person took.

Should I choose an MSW program by its ASWB pass rate? It is a fair question to ask a program, but a weak way to rank one. Program rates cannot separate differences in candidate groups from differences in teaching, and small programs can swing hard from year to year. ASWB's 2022 report edition also identifies school codes as self-reported and unverified; check the definitions in the current report you use. Ask the school what it does to prepare students, and treat the number as one input.

Are the 45% and 84% figures still current? They are figures from ASWB's Clinical summary labeled 2018–2021, published in 2022; 84% is the rounded form of 83.9%. The summary-to-appendix discrepancy is explained in the demographic section above. Later Clinical research uses a different 2018–2022 cohort. These are not this year's numbers.

Sources and how we checked them

The cited official tables and source passages, current exam and retake information, and our calculations were checked on September 14, 2026. Historical figures keep their original reporting periods wherever they appear.

Sources used

• ASWB exam pass rates — the 2025 first-time table, cohort sizes, the representativeness note, and the 2022–2025 jurisdiction and program report route
• ASWB exam pass rates by state/province — first-time and eventual definitions, exclusions, and suppression of groups under 10 (2011–2021 and 2018–2021 data)
• 2022 ASWB Exam Pass Rate Analysis (PDF) — methodology, the 2011–2021 category rates, the 2017-to-2018 blueprint transition tables, and the 2018–2021 demographic findings
• ASWB exam overview and New social work licensing exam begins August 3 — the current exam structure and the August 3, 2026 version boundary
• ASWB exam scoring — the passing standard, exam forms, and current general raw-score range
• ASWB, if you fail the exam and the 90-day waiver page — score report, waiting period, and waiver conditions
• Beyond data: A call to action (August 30, 2022) — ASWB's organizational response
• Kim & Joo, The Determinants of Licensing Exam Outcomes (PDF, 2024) — the cross-profession review
• Kim & Joo, The Effects of Race/Ethnicity on Clinical Exam Outcomes (PDF, 2024) — the later 2018–2022 U.S. Clinical study and its noncausal interpretation limit
• Robinson and colleagues, 2016 and AccessLex/NYBOLE, 2021 — primary research abstract and researcher-issued summary for the timing and study-hour discussion
• ASWB Examination Guidebook, effective for exams beginning August 3, 2026 (PDF) — exam categories and current content outlines
• ASWB school performance report (PDF, August 2022 edition) — historical school and jurisdiction definitions, self-reported school codes, and the small-program caution
• ASWB 2024 school pass-rate summary, issued August 2025 (PDF) — exam-administration definitions and a later report that publishes groups below ten
• California Board of Behavioral Sciences school report, January–June 2023 (PDF) and examination report, January 2026 — the worked example

What we calculated rather than quoted. The 25.6% repeat figure in the California example, from that board's published counts. The 71.3% simple average and the approximate 74.6% weighted rate, from ASWB's published counts and rounded rates. The roughly 11,800 first attempts that did not pass in 2025, from the same source. The four rates in the explicitly fictional 100-person example use the scenario's own inputs. The approximately 43.8% historical cross-check uses Table B2's published annual counts and rounded percentages; it identifies a summary-to-appendix discrepancy, not an official replacement rate. Each is labeled where it appears.

What we did not do. We did not compile individual state or program PDFs into a database, reconstruct the independent 2024 jurisdiction aggregation, or assemble a continuous annual trend series. ASWB's annual web table currently shows 2025; earlier results can be found in the linked jurisdiction and program reports and in its historical analyses. We checked published figures and the calculations shown here, not ASWB's or California BBS's underlying candidate records. Source checking is not an independent audit of those records.

Castleport Test Prep is an independent publisher of exam preparation materials and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by the Association of Social Work Boards, Pearson VUE, or any social work licensing board. Exam and credential names identify the subjects discussed, and trademarks belong to their respective owners.