I read some of the other comments on here and was surprised by how many claim to see a discrepancy between CACREP and non-CACREP educated counselors. That has not been my experience. I have encountered great variability in counselor capability which is usually due to amount of experience, capacity for reflection, and post-graduate training. If the commonwealth would like to set higher standards for licensure, I encourage them to do so. It seems like social workers are doing this now. But partnering with CACREP will have three negative effects. First, by reducing variability in training programs, it will make it less likely that a client will be able to find a counselor with the style and training that will work for them. Therapy is not a one-size-fits-all industry. Second, lack of variability will make it less likely that counselors-in-training will be able to match themselves with programs that will be best for them. And finally, it will increase the homogeneity of counseling thought, theory, and research. This will limit future growth of the field and make it more susceptible to errors and to following fashion rather than knowledge.  What I see, even in the comments here, is an effort to create an underclass of counselors.  There are plenty of people seeking counseling and better counselors would naturally rise to the top where people can choose the counselors they want. The only explanation, then, would be a desire to protect a client base by means of politics rather than quality of services.