Action | Requirement for CACREP accreditation for educational programs |
Stage | NOIRA |
Comment Period | Ended on 7/1/2015 |
As a graduate student in Counseling Psychology, with an interest in being able to
practice in Virginia in the future, I am writing to strongly oppose any regulatory
change in Virginia that would limit LPC licensure to graduates of master’s programs
accredited by the Council on Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational
Programs (CACREP). Based on my belief in multiple paths to licensure as an LPC, my
stance is neither anti-CACREP nor is it anti-accreditation. The field of counseling and
the public using mental health services benefit from graduates of diverse programs,
multiple paths to licensure, and from inclusivity of graduates from all accredited
counselor preparation programs – CACREP or otherwise. My perspective on the
proposed regulatory change is shaped by the following considerations:
? Diversity and inclusion in mental health is of paramount importance. In a
? Given the state of mental health care in Virginia, more service providers –
? The proposed change would unnecessarily restrict trade of LPCs in
? The proposed regulatory change also limits the hiring of mental health
? The role of the licensing board is to protect the citizens of Virginia
? There is no empirical evidence to suggest that CACREP graduates are
time of integrated care and rising mental health needs, mental health
providers are called to work together for the good of the public’s health
needs.
rather than fewer service providers are needed. For example, according
to the National Association for Mental Illness (NAMI), only 19% of
Virginians with serious mental illness receive services from Virginia’s
public mental health system. And, as of 2013, Virginia had 47 federally
designated mental health care professional shortage areas (Signer, 2014).
Addressing this shortage requires that Virginia protect and support
valuable counselor training programs – rather than close them due to the
administrative and financial limitations of achieving CACREP
accreditation.
Virginia and LPCs moving into Virginia. This includes LPCs from
neighboring states that do not restrict licensure to a particular
accrediting body.
professionals outside of counselor educators as full-time faculty members
in CACREP-accredited training programs, which in turn restricts quality
supervisors, educators, and mental health providers from sharing their
expertise in training and supervising new counselors in the state of
Virginia.
through the regulation of licensure, and not accreditation. To cede the
power of setting educational requirements that meet the needs of
Virginians to a single, out-of-state accrediting agency does not protect the
citizens of Virginia. Further, doing so may step beyond the charge of the
counseling board.
more effective or more ethical providers, and commonly cited evidence to
the contrary is methodologically unsound.
? Counseling programs in Virginia that are not affiliated with CACREP are
? There are other paths to accreditation of counseling programs. For
renowned. For example, in 2013, the counseling program at George
Mason University – a program that is not affiliated with CACREP – was
awarded the Outstanding Master’s Program award by the Southern
Association for Counselor Education and Supervision.
example, the Masters in Psychology and Counseling Accreditation Council
(MPCAC) accredits counseling programs and requires that programs
meet a standard that meets (and in some domains exceeds) the rigor of
CACREP standards.
I strongly recommend that the Commonwealth of Virginia not approve this change.
Instead, I strongly believe that Virginians will be best served by a diverse body of
LPCs, and not only those with degrees from programs affiliated with CACREP.
Respectfully,
Patrick Burns, MS