Survey reveals supervision challenges among licensed addiction counselors in multiple states

The Kansas Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board (BSRB) convened the Addiction Counseling Advisory Committee on June 3, 2025, to discuss critical issues surrounding supervision practices and the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in addiction counseling. The meeting provided insights into the current state of supervision among licensed addiction counselors and the potential role of AI in their practices.

The committee began by reviewing survey results regarding supervision. Out of 169 respondents, a significant number chose not to answer questions about their supervisory roles, primarily due to a drafting error in the survey that omitted a zero option for the number of individuals supervised. Among those who did respond, 18.9% reported supervising one person, while 13.6% supervised between three to five individuals. The data indicated that most supervisors manage a small number of supervisees, alleviating concerns about the effectiveness of supervision when numbers are too high.

The discussion then shifted to negative experiences reported by licensees regarding supervision. Among the Licensed Addiction Counselors (LACs), 10 individuals noted issues, with the most common being a lack of qualified supervisors and staffing challenges, including high turnover rates and underpayment. For Licensed Master Addiction Counselors (LMACs), 91 respondents participated, with 75 reporting no negative supervision issues. However, those who did report problems highlighted difficulties in finding qualified supervisors and issues related to supervisor professionalism and availability.

The Licensed Clinical Addiction Counselors (LCACs) also provided feedback, with 60 respondents participating. While 39 reported no negative issues, those who did raised concerns about supervisees neglecting self-care and issues with unqualified supervisors. Other challenges included inconsistent supervision and a belief that the hour requirement for clinical licensure was insufficient.

The meeting also explored the use of AI in addiction counseling practices. Among LACs, 27 individuals responded, with the majority indicating they do not currently use AI. However, some expressed interest in learning more about AI applications, particularly for note-taking and treatment planning. A similar trend was observed among LMACs, where 107 respondents participated, and 88 reported no AI usage, citing ethical concerns and client discomfort. LCACs showed a slightly higher engagement, with 187 respondents, of which 34 reported not using AI. Some indicated they were exploring AI implementation, while others emphasized the need for established best practices before adoption.

The meeting concluded with a commitment to further discussions on these topics, emphasizing the importance of effective supervision and the cautious integration of technology in addiction counseling practices. The committee plans to continue addressing these issues in future meetings, ensuring that the standards of care and professional development remain a priority in the field.