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 2015.

2. Review of Current Supervised Work Experience Requirements for LMFT and LPCC
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.

Supervision Requirements
The Committee discussed the current supervision requirements and did not see any need to change them for any of the licenses at this time.

Supervisor Qualifications
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.