I am writing to communicate strong opposition to CACREP only licensure and supervision restriction. I am urging decision-makers to give the supervision regulation the close scrutiny that it would have received under normal review processes.  I oppose the 2013 Board action that narrowed the type of supervision allowed for the license.  It sets a bad precedent in the profession where counselors are still working to make inroads into areas such as hospitals and clinics, where frequently the only available supervisors are psychologists or social workers. 

I also oppose any proposed regulations to require a CACREP degree for licensure.  Such a regulation would interfere with my (and others') ability to practice in Virginia.  There is no credible evidence (from research or my experience) that CACREP graduates make better counselors.  CACREP and the people who support it, however, regularly make these claims.  Continuing to spread such claims without evidence serves to misinform the public.  This alone should be of concern to decision makers. Decision makers need to be aware of CACREP's financial gain for spreading this misinformation and for ensuring that more and more future counselors and/or universities pursue CACREP accreditation.  CACREP's efforts to change laws are not purely good intention and protection of the public as they claim.  I am attaching the link from the CACREP website that shows their financial gain from the schools who seek accreditation.  https://www.cacrep.org/for-programs/cacrep-accreditation-fees/

The job of our licensing Boards is to protect the public, and the Board should be making effort to protect the public from CACREP's unsubstantiated claims about how their counselors are better. CACREP should be honest about the fact that they are pushing these changes for financial gain.