I can understand why many LPCs feel like this regulation shouldn't be changed. I don't agree, but I can see why. I mean, why would they want this regulation to be changed when you consider that there is a generational ideology in our field that everyone is molded by from the very onset of their careers which encompasses every thought regarding residents  (whether accurate or not)  - "misrepresentation of credentials (whether intentional or unintentional) is harmful to the client." Take this ideology and combine it with the fact that these LPCs have already completed residency and, therefore, must be far more knowledgeable than a resident, on top of the fact that they completed their residencies without being able to directly bill clients themselves - "what's everyone whining about? Residents shouldn't bill clients directly. I didn't. It's harmful to the client. It's an unnecessary change. It goes against what supervision is all about."

I can see how having this mindset prevents many LPCs from viewing this petition in an objective, forward-thinking manner. Many, if not all, of these LPCs have been able to practice independently without supervision for quite some time now, and are missing one very important aspect of the conversation: In the realm of residency/supervision, SO MANY THINGS HAVE CHANGED since they were residents. Things are not the same as they used to be. Mental health is booming now more than ever - there are more people becoming therapists and more people seeking therapy services, yet there's still a therapist shortage. We are in the throes of a mental health crisis. Insurance companies are overloaded with therapy claims. Many residents have to work 50, 60, or 70 hours a week - sometimes more. So many therapists (residents included) are experiencing extreme burnout. There's an increasing amount of supervisors implementing business models wherein they only hire residents in order to significantly increase their own profits - which only adds to the problems that residents are facing. We're living in a (semi) post-COVID era, and that alone has changed everything. Tuition/educational costs are higher. The housing market/rent is higher. The cost of living is higher. I'm sure that supervision rates are higher than, let's say, 5-10 years ago. A counseling compact is being implemented soon, which is bound to shake things up in and of itself. Things have clearly changed, so why shouldn't our regulations? Unless you can fully consider ALL of the factors surrounding the CURRENT state of the residency experience in its entirety (compared to when you were a resident), you are not being completely fair and impartial when commenting on this petition.

After graduation, residents must continue with supervision and continuing education. No one is saying that these are bad things - they build our body of knowledge, increase standards for the field, and lend us even more credibility. But, they also come at a cost of both time and money - especially in today's changing professional landscape! Therefore, it's important to recognize that we CAN change our regulations to stay current while also continuing to maintain the overall purity of the supervision experience.

Approving this petition will provide residents with the option to govern their own salaries, eliminate supervisor tax risks, reduce cybercrime risks (for everyone involved in the financial transactions that are billed), and help balance an imbalanced power dynamic between residents and supervisors - while still maintaining the integrity of the supervision experience (to include the accurate representation of credentials - as outlined multiple times in previous comments).

We are an evidence-based profession - let's act like it! Until someone offers a legitimate reason for denying this petition that is not based on "I believe," "I think," "I feel," "could," "might," or "may," but is based on true evidence/research (which has YET to happen from those opposing this petition), then there's simply no reason for this petition to be denied, as there have been numerous evidence-based reasons to approve it. And that includes the notion that residents billing clients directly causes harm to the client (for which there is actual evidence that proves otherwise - read previous comments). Anybody can say it - PROVE IT!