As the petitioner, I would like to address some of the comments:
Regarding the Anonymous comment “Not in support” posted at 8/24/24 9:00 am that contained the following:
“THIS. This right here is why our profession is a joke in VA. Way to go random clinical supervisor who also sits on the board?!?!?! Terrible. Terrible proposal by a colleague who is the opposite of a gatekeeper. I’ve been fully licensed for 20 years. Next this individual will say, “oh let’s allow residents to practice and bill BEFORE THEY GET THEIR MASTERS”. When will it end.?
To help clarify “sits on the board,” I sent an email encouraging comment (whether in support or not) for this petition in which I said “I am doing this independently as a Virginia approved supervisor since 1994 and not in my role as a Northern Virginia Licensed Professional Counselors Board member and Chair. This represents my own opinion and not that of NVLPC.” That statement was to make it absolutely clear that I was not submitting this petition as part of my NVLPC roles so as to be sure there is NO confusion since many people know me from my volunteerism with that organization. However, this may have led to the confusion in thinking I am an employee of the Virginia Board of Counseling or that I sit on the Board as a Board member. I am neither. I have been in contact with the Board of Counseling for over 30 years though my own residencies, licensures, supervisory responsibilities, and their answering the many questions I’ve asked regarding the regulations. I am confident in saying they are careful in being ethical stewards of our regulations. There would be no possibility that anyone employed by the Board or on the Board would submit a petition because it would be a conflict of interest. On a separate note, suggesting that I would support graduate students in practicing independently is unfounded and unwarranted. Although not quoted here, it is disappointing to hear such disparagement of all the clinicians in Virginia and of the Board itself.
Next, why would there be so many anonymous posts? Is it possible that some are from residents caught up in some of these exploitive situations and are afraid of retribution? Or are they from supervisors who are threatened by the financial loss if their residents are more easily able to transition to their own practices? Based on the multiple situations I’m aware of, sadly these may be the reasons.
Regarding the VACSB’s comment: is it based on a misunderstanding of this petition because this petition does not apply to residents who are employees of the CSB (or who work for a private practice):
Now to address the misinformation that seems to be coming from posters who identify themselves as supervisors. It’s important to regularly monitor the regulations in order to be aware of the many changes that have happened over the years. Using the old terminology only perpetuates the misuse.
If there is any concern that any of these are inaccurate, please email the Board to confirm and if I’m wrong, I’m happy to correct what I’ve written.
Regarding the supervisor who said that the vicarious liability for their resident includes going to court and depositions based on the regulations they quoted: [The supervisor shall provide supervision as defined in 18VAC115-50-10 and shall assume full responsibility for the clinical activities of residents as specified within the supervisory contract for the duration of the residency]. Who interpreted the regulations to you in that way. It would be important to confirm this and to know if that’s the experience of any other supervisors. Wouldn’t it only be the case if you “specified within the supervisory contract” that you would accompany them, which would then be specific to you. However, how is this related to the petition?
Regarding the poster who said this change would mean “more liability” for a supervisor: it seems there is more of a liability to have the IRS possibly think the Resident’s income that’s passing through the supervisor’s account would be the supervisor’s income and then requiring the supervisor to pay the taxes on that income.
Regarding the posters who said this would encourage “blind empowerment” and that it would “lower the bar” because Residents are “not ready for all the responsibilities” and “sends a message that supervision requirements are not important”. The question is: when the client (who is informed that the Resident is under supervision and by whom and that they are NOT practicing independently) gives the Resident their credit card number and agrees to have their credit card billed for each session, do you think the client knows or checks or cares if the account number into which their payment is deposited is that of the Resident or the Supervisor? The only reason the client knows that it’s going into the supervisor’s account, is because the Resident has explained that in the financial agreement signed by the client. This electronic process can’t possibly have anything to do with lowering the standards of residency and supervision in Virginia. Regarding lowering standards, does the fact that MSW supervisees only being required to have 100 hours of supervision before licensure and independent private practice cause anyone concern about their lower bar?
Regarding the comment that this “will defer new residents from working with the underserved and more will go to private practice for increased pay”: Are you suggesting that it’s right to sacrifice the opportunity for Residents to earn a living wage so that they will be forced to work with the underserved? Instead, an alternative would be to promote better funding to improve the services who are already working with the underserved.
Regarding the many posters who think this will result in a flood of inexperienced Residents to be out in the world without any supervision: What is that based on? Supervision is required. If anyone is practicing without a license and without supervision, they can be reported to the DHP. This also makes the assumption that supervisors aren’t vetting the Residents they take on in their role as gatekeepers. Because of the vicarious liability, it’s more likely supervisors are much more inclined to NOT take on a Resident they feel is not competent enough to be in a private practice, therefore resulting in Residents being more likely to work in a practice before going out on their own.
One more thought. It’s naïve to assume that all LPC’s, LMFT’s, supervisors, and Residents are all ethical and following the regulations. Like any group of individuals, the bell-shaped curve applies here as well. There are people functioning at both ends of the curve, those who are extremely ethical and those who acting unethically at the other end of the curve. It is true that the majority of people are acting ethically and doing the best they can, and are not taking advantage of Residents, but I am keenly aware that that’s not true. Accepting this petition should not be based on the outliers. Residents should not be denied the opportunity to earn a livable wage just because they can’t find a supervisor because of supervisors’ concern about the possible financial impact of money they did not earn going through their bank account.