Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Health Professions
 
Board
Board of Counseling
 
chapter
Regulations Governing the Practice of Professional Counseling [18 VAC 115 ‑ 20]
Action Requirement for CACREP accreditation for educational programs
Stage Proposed
Comment Period Ended on 7/14/2017
spacer
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
6/30/17  9:44 am
Commenter: Nicole Halmos

Opposed to CACREP only legislation
 

CACREP only legislation is an example of lobbying at its worst.   There is no question that well-trained qualified professionals are necessary and that there needs to be some oversight in ensuring that mental health professionals meet a standards of practice. However, the claim that CACREP accredited institutions are the only,  or even the best way, to achieve this is false and biased.   The proposed initiative is an implicit attempt by CACREP accredited universities and the CACREP business entities to secure market advantage.  It will gradually eliminate or harm graduate programs that offer Masters degrees in Counseling Psychology, Creative Arts Therapy, Clinical Psychology, Sports Psychology, Forensic Psychology, etc., whose graduates qualify for licensure through rigorous training and examinations.  Universities which have requirements as or more rigorous than CACREP accredited universities, but who do not wish to pay the fees involved in becoming CACREP accredited would suffer as would qualified professionals who graduated prior to CACREP accreditation.
 
The LCPCM (Licensed Clinical Professional Counselors of Maryland) supports an inclusive vision of mental health counseling, based on meeting course and clinical experience requirements, not degree title or accreditation. We are very concerned when an accreditation body attempts to create an educational monopoly, based on unproven claims of  superiority, and does not allow alternative accreditation bodies to approve equivalent routes to mental health counselor licensure.
 


 The Commonwealth of Virginia should be working toward parity of licensure between Maryland and Virginia to insure an ample supply of mental health professionals who can practice in Virginia; since such a policy would allow all Virginia residents access their to highly qualified mental health professionals from Maryland. Unfortunately, that is not the stance the Commonwealth of Virginia is taking. They wish to make licensure more restrictive based on graduate program accreditation rather than the competency or experience of the practitioner. The narrowness of this approach is curious at a time when Virginia is in need of highly qualified mental health professionals to treat their residents

 

CommentID: 60477