[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6564702,"mediaKeyId","3274490-811c464ed88cdf44bcbe28d1764f2d40","parentId",3274490,"title","Board opposes Social Work Interstate Compact (AB 427) as written, asks staff to seek amendments","audioSeconds",2499,"startMs",7089000,"endMs",9588000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3274490-811c464ed88cdf44bcbe28d1764f2d40&start=7089&end=9588","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3274490-811c464ed88cdf44bcbe28d1764f2d40/thumbnail_7089000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6564702/California/Board-opposes-Social-Work-Interstate-Compact-AB-427-as-written-asks-staff-to-seek-amendments","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6564702-92ddf1ff4fdc973f98ac08c0851ce71d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770679359&Signature=ENSpxWcNoUD61mtNcWC77GgUEOcWyA2FGW1GjGvbpqnDjvfQt5KC86sLi4sA8Q7yW7JQGhpTwsn0NyaAeOz60qimyxWKgTAi3SiZwUlt8~0Haxh1vlog5O2YvwAsCH9ON1MokghHYlHUchuMa1ENVnpiN2UVSQj4u1e0i4sGQokJqxn~I75uhPYOyAxNvPqDJRoB6bc3hlsmzVpyO34Fdna1VnayJ-ll8EbqfoOiUnCi6XKTqOzbfHw7AZR4DK68phrAweDdQ5N9k3GS83zlUYtpLBm7xZKYRb5mJImX2Bf94y-lfHx4QTAtkPbAm3BiGohR-yZzyIANRGHDWQTsxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Respiratory Care Board of California","date","2025-05-12T21:50:51Z","article","The California Board of Behavioral Sciences voted May 9 to oppose Assembly Bill 427 as drafted, which would implement the Social Work Licensure Compact in California and permit multistate practice privileges for clinical social workers.

Board staff legislative manager Roseanne Helms summarized the compact's provisions and noted key tradeoffs: membership would allow a multistate license or authorization to practice but would also require member states to cede some rulemaking authority to a compact commission (one delegate per member state, one vote per state). Helms said the compact would not allow California to require out‑of‑state multistate licensees to take California‑specific continuing‑education coursework or California law‑and‑ethics testing; those requirements currently form part of the board's streamlined pathway for out‑of‑state applicants.

Board members raised multiple concerns. Several members said the compact in its current form would reduce California's ability to require baseline California‑specific training—covering topics such as mandated child‑abuse reporting, confidentiality rules, and the state's consumer‑protection expectations—and that the compact's governance (one‑state/one‑vote) could leave California with limited influence relative to its licensee population. Members also flagged the compact's reliance on the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) examinations; board members reiterated concerns the board has previously raised about racial disparities in ASWB pass rates.

After public comment from representatives of the compact commission and stakeholder groups, the board voted to oppose AB 427 as currently written. The motion also directed staff to continue discussions with the bill's author and the compact commission to identify specific amendments the board would need to protect California's consumer‑protection standards, including potential provisions on (1) California law and ethics or equivalent one‑time coursework for multistate licensees, (2) safeguards for California‑specific practice standards, and (3) clarity about supervision and other practice rules for multistate license holders.

The board's opposition is a policy position on pending legislation, not a regulatory action; staff will report back to the board on their discussions with the author and compact commission and any proposed amendments.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Behavioral Sciences - Meeting May 9, 2025 - 1 of 2","oneSentenceSummary","The board voted to oppose Assembly Bill 427, the Social Work Licensure Compact, citing concerns about loss of California‑specific law and coursework requirements, proportional representation on the compact commission, and reliance on the ASWB exam; board directed staff to engage the bill author and compact commission on possible amendments.","taxTitle","Respiratory Care Board of California, Boards and Commissions, Executive, California","taxId",76751,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6564707,"Board weighs action on AI therapy companions; staff to convene listening session and analyze authority",1620,6832000,8452000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3274490-811c464ed88cdf44bcbe28d1764f2d40&start=6832&end=8452","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3274490-811c464ed88cdf44bcbe28d1764f2d40/thumbnail_6832000.jpg","/articles/6564707/California/Board-weighs-action-on-AI-therapy-companions-staff-to-convene-listening-session-and-analyze-authority","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6564707-74a414500618720796d5bc7bb1a712e5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770679359&Signature=ayTG1mhILvN8P6WjTFZNRuizIQHeGRa7Y-uA0Lfw7BehS4Bv~LaZ9SMlhVlEdjyykKqnF1bZb4za0Z-ckqR45NfBl3EAoX5qWbDHiYVorHmhTSfQBNXetAIXw9M2wmCldCCNhYk60svZ1DzFcx8qLflgqMIkZQsg~2x~9bvZKGZkQ40HZYTXa-v5XDRSxMZ3wOcgkzN1wFowk-jv5nIJkSvgLG9HFILGTkdDcQd3yuaM9X72g7i-o3p0vh0MfrRFwRcivu6VMLDAERg0cwzoRCN4rNZSIcAjVKBnySux5os1YTfsopTXHY3JO~QpwOfDu8py1ujPdUKuN1f8wyCqRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Board members at the California Board of Behavioral Sciences debated May 9 whether the board should seek new authority to act against companies that deploy AI companions that mimic therapy, and directed staff to gather data and host listening sessions to inform next steps.

Several members said the technology is evolving faster than the board’s regulatory framework and voiced concern about AI companions marketed to young people that can replicate therapeutic language without clinician oversight. Board member Kelly Ranasinghe described cases in which AI applications blurred the line between companionship and clinical care and said there is a growing risk to consumers if platforms provide advice that should be delivered by trained clinicians.

Executive Officer Steve Sodergren and staff described two policy paths: legislation to give the board authority to take action against an entity or company, and participation in cross‑agency working groups that examine AI in mental health. Staff told the board that current authority allows action against individuals (licensees) but not against companies or platforms; one bill on the day's agenda would extend enforcement authority to entities, a first step staff and members said could be useful.

Members agreed to begin a data‑gathering process that may include an \"AI listening session\" with licensing associations, technology experts, consumer advocates and other boards to identify consumer‑safety concerns, likely points of harm (for example, confidentiality breaches or risk assessment failures), and resource implications for enforcement. Several members warned the effort could be resource‑intensive and asked staff to scope costs and staffing needs before recommending a regulatory or statutory route.

No formal vote was taken on new authority during the meeting; staff said they will return with options, research and a plan for stakeholder engagement, and the board discussed drafting formal advice or amendments if future legislation is introduced.","Board members discussed concerns about AI 'companions' and the lack of regulatory authority over companies that publish AI chatbots posing as therapy; staff said a bill could extend board authority and that the board will pursue data gathering and stakeholder listening sessions.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6564712,"Board initiates rulemaking to cut licensing and exam fees by 50% for four years",0,7635000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3274490-811c464ed88cdf44bcbe28d1764f2d40&start=7635&end=7635","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3274490-811c464ed88cdf44bcbe28d1764f2d40/thumbnail_7635000.jpg","/articles/6564712/California/Board-initiates-rulemaking-to-cut-licensing-and-exam-fees-by-50-for-four-years","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6564712-e99cf04a086d69a98e318b55a9927297/orig.mp4?Expires=1770679359&Signature=JGZScCQU0hbcdo~9r1iSb6qGLOFsWePZv14KKm9~7Uf9r0XoZmGRJ6XtgtbSGIOvr28QM96PKq8yKG5UEx4fJRCNyMxjBOnVQrnLoYoeST2X6hoCWCt1sOffG-2xhmyz3~s3k6wfT75WjdZxEs-gEHlXr7gBK-5DP1htHpPtNKpfdro1ApzU273ZXyJB2pcqduh0zXgMyrT813tb5d4HkAYjaxrABcYGmXKwahFm5xuxNzsrPLu2RLrpGRQ3GNogrU-B~4Noz4ueTQT1MherSF8fEE1dRgy2dxfSYDCtEl6d~gxeY4fs-4L-xoFdOlFkGIEjY4w7D5mtyDuxDFhIbw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The California Board of Behavioral Sciences voted May 9 to begin rulemaking to reduce specified license, registration, application and examination fees by 50% for a four‑year period beginning July 1, 2026, a move staff said is intended to bring the board’s reserve balance into compliance with Business and Professions Code requirements.

Executive Officer Steve Sodergren explained the board’s operating fund is projected to exceed the statutory two‑year (24‑month) reserve threshold at the end of the fiscal year. In consultation with the Department of Consumer Affairs' budget office, staff proposed the across‑the‑board 50% reduction to licensing and examination fees; staff estimated the reduction would lower the reserve from an estimated 26.3 months to roughly 15.4 months by the end of fiscal year 2029–30.

Under the proposed regulatory text staff presented to the board, renewal fees for full licenses would drop from $200 to $100 and associate renewals from $150 to $75; initial licensure application fees and registrations would be reduced similarly. Board‑administered clinical exam fees and law‑and‑ethics exam fees would also be cut by half.

Board members debated the approach before voting. Some members and stakeholders supported immediate relief for licensees and a simple, administrable reduction. Other members urged staff to develop an \"exit plan\" and ongoing monitoring so the board can respond if projections change; staff said the board will closely monitor fund activity and could propose future regulatory or statutory adjustments if necessary. Several members also asked staff to continue exploring alternatives (for example, using limited‑term positions, BCPs, or targeted fee adjustments) but noted those options had tradeoffs and uncertain timelines.

During public comment Ben Caldwell, MFT, recommended a more targeted approach (smaller cuts to renewals and larger cuts for early‑career exam/registration fees to help pipeline development). Board members acknowledged the suggestion but indicated staff had consulted the budget office and that the across‑the‑board approach was the most straightforward means to meet the statutory reserve requirement in the near term.

The board approved the motion to initiate rulemaking and authorized the executive officer to make non‑substantive changes and, if no adverse comments or hearing requests are received after the 45‑day public comment period, to complete and adopt the regulation package.

Staff said they will post the proposed text for the public comment period and conduct outreach to notify licensees of the proposed changes and the expected regulatory timeline.","To comply with the state reserve-rule requirement, the board voted to begin rulemaking that would reduce many license, registration and exam fees by 50% from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2030; staff said the change is projected to reduce the reserve to about 15.4 months.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6564717,"Board approves responses to public comments and advances disciplinary guideline rulemaking",1276,4411000,5687000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3274490-811c464ed88cdf44bcbe28d1764f2d40&start=4411&end=5687","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3274490-811c464ed88cdf44bcbe28d1764f2d40/thumbnail_4411000.jpg","/articles/6564717/California/Board-approves-responses-to-public-comments-and-advances-disciplinary-guideline-rulemaking","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6564717-9c24ee01ab6bed37132decb02aae48a5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770679359&Signature=fs7C6aFDe1QFg~MP-5NR9vDEKrz-2jrMwzZU91lEYoUvcHqgUneh1HmkdUCbMOHq0m92VX59I8qSIfTlJrS-~6jxUv6C-TB9YPK5oJ5PREeqk2QyNi1YZjFICmlQlcIcYbQdMUuwdMXZqb8bunmcvwTzwpYIHcCGhDTZ~ft9qe6osnxxB48obCycFrVyVQZYs1JZQyDD~hZe-echmJFhOABHooNyidh1aBE4VHCt5-~-pFbVlvM8DHAQhJJKEaMKxX94rJSk6-s7heT-Ru-F7KQiZ0r4gk0BUsp3~4PhDUXq3Sar7KF7ebjkOI5XDXbW-cdNDTyKWuwzEP4xr-xzWw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The California Board of Behavioral Sciences voted May 9 to approve staff responses to 45-day public comments on proposed changes to the board's enforcement regulations, and then authorized staff to complete the formal rulemaking process and submit the final package to the Office of Administrative Law.

Board regulatory manager Christy Berger told members the comment period produced two substantive letters, both seeking clarification and flagging the financial impact of longer probation terms. Berger said staff recommended no changes to the proposed language because the amendments clarify—but do not change—how the board treats violations that involve drugs or alcohol and because the board's experience supports the proposed probation lengths for certain categories.

The board's action matters because the regulation changes refine when the \"uniform standards\" on substance abuse apply and adjust recommended probation durations for specific violations, including provisions that address unlicensed activity and the gaining or supervision of qualifying experience hours. Staff said the clarified text would reduce ambiguity about when the uniform standards automatically apply and align penalties to risk to public safety.

During public comment, representatives from the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) and other stakeholders thanked staff for clarifying the intent of the changes and urged the board to remain mindful of the financial strains longer probations can impose on licensees. Board members acknowledged those concerns while stressing that public safety guided the proposed penalty lengths.

The board first voted to direct staff to respond to the comments as drafted, and then voted to proceed with completing rulemaking and filing the final rulemaking package with the Office of Administrative Law if no adverse comments or hearing requests are received. Both motions were carried by roll-call vote.

Board Chair Christopher Jones and staff said the next step is OAL review; if the OAL approves and there are no adverse comments, the amendments will proceed through the usual regulatory timeline before becoming effective.

The adopted responses and the final rulemaking package will be posted to the board's rulemaking docket, and staff said they will notify stakeholders when the rulemaking package is filed and again if OAL posts the final rule.

Notes: The board's action addressed comments about (1) whether the proposed presumption that a violation involving drugs or alcohol is a substance-abuse violation changes practice (staff said it codifies current implementation policy), and (2) comments that increasing certain probation lengths could impose financial burdens on probationers (staff said public safety considerations support the proposed terms).","The California Board of Behavioral Sciences approved staff responses to public comments and voted to finalize and submit regulatory text amending the uniform standards and disciplinary guidelines; board motions carried unanimously.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board opposes Social Work Interstate Compact (AB 427) as written, asks staff to seek amendments

Board weighs action on AI therapy companions; staff to convene listening session and analyze authority

Board initiates rulemaking to cut licensing and exam fees by 50% for four years

Board approves responses to public comments and advances disciplinary guideline rulemaking