No to CACREP-only: Ethics, Economics and Alternatives 

CACREP has done MUCH to establish a scope of practice for professional counselors, put standards front and center for the discipline, and passionately advocate for counselor identity.  All good and important.  However, there is no credible evidence that support CACREP's claim that graduates of CACREP programs are better trained than graduates of non-CACREP graduate programs.  Also, as noted in the economic impact study, there is a net negative impact of the regulation on small business development. On ethical grounds, qualified practitioners would be unable to meet the needs of vulnerable people in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

Alternatives:

1. The Masters in Psychology and Counseling Accreditation Council (MPCAC) is one alternative accrediting body with a fast growing list of graduate programs that include some of the nations top counselor training programs.

2. State Boards set standrads for graduate education, and most state regulations already meet CACREP standards.

CACREP-only regulations add little, and will have a negative community impact.  The first prnicple of ethics is, "Above all do no harm."  Please vote no on the proposed revision.