June 27, 2014
1. Purpose of the Committee
The Supervision Committee was appointed in November 2013. The Committee is
in the process of conducting a holistic review of the current requirements
for supervised work experience and requirements for supervisors.
The Committee’s is focusing on the assessment of current requirements
for supervised work experience, supervisor’s qualifications, and supervisor’s
responsibilities to determine if these requirements adequately prepare candidates
to serve California’s diverse population. Stakeholders and interested
parties will continue to be given an opportunity to provide input, feedback,
and express their concerns regarding supervision.
The Committee, stakeholders, and interested parties will evaluate relevant
data and information to establish standards for supervisors and supervision
that ensures consumer protection and does not impede the licensure process.
The Committee anticipates submitting its recommendations to the Board in
2. Review of Current Supervised Work Experience Requirements for LMFT and
Supervised experience requirements for licensure have some broad similarities
between the professions regulated by the Board. Because many of the laws that
set forth experience requirements were developed separately for each license
type, there are naturally a number of differences. Some of the variances in
requirements are explained by differences in the focus and philosophy of each
profession. However, for other requirements, it is less clear why there may
be a difference. It was noted that consumer protection is the primary charge
of the BBS.
The Committee discussed:
- Supervised Experience Hours and Categories
- Supervision Requirements
- Supervisor Qualifications
Supervised Experience Hours and Categories
There are a number of commonalities between the LCSW, LMFT and LPCC professions,
including two years of supervised experience consisting of at least 3,000
hours, some hours of direct treatment, limits on client centered advocacy
hours, and requiring all hours be gained within the 6-year period prior to
application for licensure.
Beyond these requirements, the programs tend to differ, although LMFT and LPCC
are most similar. LCSW license appears to be the most direct path to gaining
hours. LMFT and LPCC have a variety of maximum and minimum of hours in various
types of training (the “buckets”).
The majority of the discussion was focused on providing more flexibility within
the “buckets”. The Committee discussed the option of removing the
many “buckets” within the LMFT and LPCC supervision pathway, and
instead simply categorize the 3,000 hours (and 3,200 hours respectively) into
clinical and non-clinical. For example, within “non-clinical” would
be supervision, client centered advocacy, workshops, etc. Also discussed was
an approximate breakdown of clinical: non-clinical in a 2:1 ratio to assure
licensees were getting enough clinical hands-on training. Further discussed
was the couples, family and child hours “bucket”—the need
for this category, the number of hours, and what research could be obtained
to address the desire to have it.
The Committee was asked by CAMFT and AAMFT-CA to bring back to the next meeting
to bring possible sample amended language to the licensure law, as well as
research on any items that were being reviewed.
CAMFT provided the BBS sample legislative language addressing the “buckets” and
AAMFT-CA provided a white paper to address the need for change. CAMFT and AAMFT-CA
worked collaboratively on both projects.
The Committee discussed the current supervision requirements and did not see
any need to change them for any of the licenses at this time.
CAMFT requested that the BBS consider for regulation change allowing supervisors
of MFTs to count time licensed in another state toward the two years of licensure
required to supervise.
3. Future Supervision Survey
The Committee reviewed the sample survey that will be sent to supervisors and
supervisees. The public provided comment on sample questions.
4. Public Comment
The Committee allowed for public comment. Many observers expressed concerns
and frustrations at the continued backlog on the processing times.