August 30, 2018

To the Virginia Leadership:

In response to the current periodic review of the Regulations Governing the Practice of Professional Counseling (18 VAC 115 20), we are writing this letter to strongly encourage you to reject any attempt by the Virginia Board of Counseling to restrict counselor licensure to graduates of programs accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). We further request that you consider reviewing and removing the recent 2016 revision of the regulations (18 VAC 115 20) that restricts counseling residents in Virginia to receiving supervision from only Licensed Professional Counselors (LPCs) or Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFTs). Prior to the revision, psychologists, social workers, and psychiatrists were able to provide supervision to counseling residents.

We are concerned, based on the Virginia Counseling Board’s meeting minutes and reports from prospective licensees, that proponents of CACREP accreditation are again poised to attempt to restrict the license-eligibility of graduates from psychology-based counselor master’s programs. (CACREP does not accredit psychology-based programs; only MPCAC accredits psychology-based counseling master’s programs.) If this movement continues unopposed and is successful, graduates of our Applied Psychology program and other non-CACREP accredited counseling master’s programs in Maryland (that is, the majority of Maryland programs) will not be license-eligible in Virginia, simulating a type of regulatory capture and limiting the availability of well-trained practitioners from serving Virginia residents. In fact, only about 30% of counseling programs nationally are CACREP-accredited, thus reducing the number of eligible practitioners able to enter and practice in the state of Virginia should such a regulation pass.

Over the past 30 years at the University of Baltimore, we have students who travel to our program from and intend to practice in Virginia; CACREP licensure restrictions are a threat not only to our students and their professional goals, but to most Maryland graduate counselor training programs in general. The counselor licensure requirements of Maryland do not name any specific program accreditation for gradutes seeking licensure and do not restrict graduates of Virginia counseling programs from seeking licensure in Maryland based on program accreditation. In addition, the profession of counseling is currently exploring ways to enhance portability of counselor licensure.  Restrictions in one state that are not shared by other, and particularly neighboring, states are likely to complicate efforts toward portability.  We encourage you to review the 2016 Economic Impact Report on the last proposed regulation changes that would restrict licensure in Virginia to CACREP graduates:

http://towhall.virginia.gov/l/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\25\4259\7390\EIA_DHP_7390_vE.pdf

Rejecting a CACREP-only agenda does not threaten CACREP, the public, or the profession of counseling. Those schools that choose to seek CACREP accreditation remain free to do so. Those schools, such as George Mason University (GMU), that do not choose to seek CACREP accreditation may still train and graduate well-prepared counseling professionals to serve the residents of Virginia. GMU counseling program graduates are currently eligible for licensure in Virginia and have been serving the public for decades. Nothing will change regarding their training; only the restriction of a regulation change would render them ineligible for licensure, similar to the potential effects on many Maryland counselor training programs (and those across the country).

Finally, we urge you review and remove the regulation passed during Governor McDonnell’s Regulatory Reform Initiative (RRI) that removed psychologists, social workers, and psychiatrists as eligible supervisors of counseling residents. This regulation was changed during a broad RRI in 2012-2013, the motivation for which was to alleviate regulatory burdens and promote job creation for Virginia residents. It appears that this change did not get the same level of public scrutiny that it would have under the regular regulatory change, although 6 public comments in 2011 were all opposed to the action before its passage under the RRI. The change, though enacted under the RRI, was not specifically listed as such in the report to the governor in December 2013. Additionally, the change was antithetical to the purpose of the RRI (removing regulations to alleviate burdens), as it instead further restricted resident counselors’ ability to find qualified supervisors for their resident training period. The professions of psychiatry, social work, and most notably, psychology share theoretical, technical, and empirical bases for the work of mental health treatment with the profession of counseling. There is no evidence to suggest that these closely related professions and their licensed clinicians are unable to supply quality supervision to LPCs. Furthermore, these regulations are likely to interfere with portability of licensure between states, which is of great interest to Maryland training programs. Current Maryland state counseling regulations allow for psychologists, social workers, and psychiatrists (in addition to LPCs and LMFTs) to provide supervision to Licensed Graduate Professional Counselors (our version of counseling residents).

We appreciate your time and attention to our concerns regarding these important issues.

Sincerely,

Darlene Brannigan-Smith, Ph.D., Executive Vice President and Provost       

Christine Spencer, Ph.D., Dean, Yale Gordon College of Arts and Sciences

Sharon Glazer, Ph.D., Chair, Division of Applied Behavioral Sciences

Courtney Gasser, Ph.D., L.P., N.C.C., Program Director, Master’s of Science in Applied Psychology-Counseling Psychology Concentration