Agencies | Governor
Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Department of Health Professions
Board of Counseling
Regulations Governing the Practice of Professional Counseling [18 VAC 115 ‑ 20]
Action Requirement for CACREP accreditation for educational programs
Comment Period Ends 7/1/2015
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
6/1/15  4:13 pm
Commenter: Ann Brown, LPC



RE: Protesting CACREP ONLY

CACREP ONLY License qualifier is a BAD idea. CACREP should stick with school counseling accreditation only.


Allowing a FOR PROFIT GROUP such as CACREP to determine qualifications is a fallacy. Schools such as Harvard and many other quality schools choose not to participate in the CACREP accreditation process due to the high costs and the accreditation process.


CACREP should not be the gold standard since graduates from CACREP schools have shown no evidence based superior performance in studies.


The board of counseling should find a more inclusive way to qualify counselors to practice instead of turning to CACREP for guidance.


CACREP is new to the business of accrediting for mental health therapists.

Other accreditations should be accepted since they are older and more established. Other accreditation groups have served to qualify more mental health workers than CACREP. Research shows no benefit to CACREP qualified therapists.


CACREP offers no provisions for therapists who did not graduate from a CACREP school and yet have been highly successful in their given field of practice than a new CACREP grad. The public will be misled and not served if CACREP only is made the mandatory requirement for licensure.

State unemployment rates will rise if the non-CACREP graduates are not allowed to enter the field as a licensed worker.



There are more NON-CACREP counselors currently practicing that will suffer even though they have years of experience and have accomplished  many hours of CEU's.

If there is one standardized licensure exam that candidates must take in order to be licensed to practice it should not matter which program they completed, CACREP or NON_CACREP approved. Counseling psychology masters and masters in counseling are parallel programs in most universities and most states.


The fight for superiority in this profession among LMFT, LPC, LCSW is all ridiculous at this point when ALL these masters level care workers are interested in helping the people they are trained to serve.

ALL should be equally qualified to practice without one having the upper hand.


Federal agencies who have made CACREP a requirement have done harm to the public, the practicing therapists, and should not be a reason to follow  . A burden has been placed on the public and those who utilize the services.

I can personally speak to military members who now have limited mental health help as a result of CACREP only.

CACREP only is confusing the public which ultimately will not serve the public.

There must be a non-CACREP grandfathering provision allowed for the overwhelming number of non-CACREP licensed therapists who have been in successful practice since before CACREP began pushing their agenda.

State boards should not give control over licensure to CACREP. It is a disservice to their community.


There is no shortage now of highly qualified counselors and there is no benefit to CACREP.


The counseling field needs to have the opportunity for variety in the ways individuals practice in other states. State portability needs to be standardized somehow so that other professionals can easily move from state to state.


To Date, ALL States utilize a standard licensing test in order for masters level candidates to apply for practice. this method has been working quite well for years. WHY mess with something that is not broken in order to build a for profit business like CACREP?


Tricare is a good example of the failure of CACREP only accreditation.

Ann Brown M.A., LPC

CommentID: 39979