[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-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",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_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",6146397,"mediaKeyId","5527861-552d21bfc1e4e7932b653814067cfc3d","parentId",5527861,"title","Board proposes narrowing pastoral‑counseling exemption to faith‑based services and clarifying limits","audioSeconds",2073,"startMs",5136000,"endMs",7209000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5527861-552d21bfc1e4e7932b653814067cfc3d&start=5136&end=7209","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5527861-552d21bfc1e4e7932b653814067cfc3d/thumbnail_5136000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6146397/California/Board-proposes-narrowing-pastoralcounseling-exemption-to-faithbased-services-and-clarifying-limits","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146397-0092cbeac97621c675a4104c0f9455df/orig.mp4?Expires=1775725435&Signature=dJCXKYQ5j9iwGaXmbtdS5Ki9EFKMHSUfxqVi-92uejVWxsEtEowxyzV7j0duRFlgv0JJIvdgmwKpPktNYPD64bAgbjXrFPvOFaO-Sfbo96plN-QJj8bkQixu1u3Gt8mgIk8nQXkv~j1cuPIfhwECF1Cq~-l6-25WctbHboI6-OeNeq9NCRWIr8Tx1hWK3~JuByFSPo6mgafMXwCSF4~E295IU6HXxNu-tZaLvI84tDulNA-UbK0873cXC-bnBcXN7u~4U92BgBVMogojxn3Bhlb7amWzL3x6mjcfKB2P5l0MYJQGkX-im~S28DvGGexsDI8R08Th5N0HD2IFqJLcGg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Board of Behavioral Sciences","date","2025-08-04T18:01:53Z","article","The Policy and Advocacy Committee on July 31 directed staff to refine statutory language clarifying when religious leaders’ counseling is exempt from state licensing and when it crosses into regulated clinical practice.
Staff presented research on how other states handle pastoral or faith‑based counseling exemptions and proposed language (attachments A1–A3) that would limit the exemption to counseling provided under the auspices of a legally recognized faith‑based organization, within the organization’s customary duties, without separate fees charged to clients, and without holding oneself out to the public as a clinical provider. Sarita (staff presenter) said staff focused on “faith‑based counseling” language rather than the narrower word “pastoral” to encompass diverse religious traditions.
Under the draft language staff presented, the exemption would not apply if the individual charged clients a fee separate from customary compensation from the religious entity, if the individual used occupational titles or descriptions that imply clinical practice (for example using words such as psychosocial or psychotherapy in public descriptions), or if the services involved diagnosis or treatment of mental disorders. The committee discussed whether to add the Nursing Practice Act and the LEP practice act to an existing carve‑out list; staff recommended doing so so the carve‑out language aligns with other sections elsewhere in statute.
Several stakeholders and association representatives supported the clarity. Chauncey (association representative) and others suggested adding the word “psychotherapy” next to “psychosocial” in the provision that bars holding oneself out as a clinical provider; the committee accepted that suggestion and directed staff to include psychotherapy in the draft. Committee members and staff discussed how to define \"legally recognized\" faith‑based entities and noted that enforcement of the fee prohibition would be the board’s usual administrative route (citation, fine, discipline) for violations when the exemption was misused.
The committee voted to direct staff to amend the three practice acts (LMFT, LCSW, LPCC): add references to the LEP and Nursing Practice Act in subdivision A, strike the word \"pastoral\" in favor of broader wording in subdivision B, add “psychotherapy” to the list of titles/descriptions not permitted, and bring a final legislative proposal to the board. The motion carried, with one abstention.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Behavioral Sciences - Policy and Advocacy Committee Meeting - July 31, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The board’s policy committee voted July 31 to clarify statutory exemptions for faith‑based counseling: counseling provided under a legally recognized religious entity’s auspices and without separate client fees would remain exempt, while services resembling clinical practice—billing clients separately, using clinical titles or offering diagnosis/treatment—would not be exempt.","taxTitle","Board of Behavioral Sciences, Other State Agencies, Executive, California","taxId",15987,"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},6146400,"Board committee backs phased plan to ease licensure steps for therapists",488,1712000,2200000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5527861-552d21bfc1e4e7932b653814067cfc3d&start=1712&end=2200","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5527861-552d21bfc1e4e7932b653814067cfc3d/thumbnail_1712000.jpg","/articles/6146400/California/Board-committee-backs-phased-plan-to-ease-licensure-steps-for-therapists","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146400-f292406d647b5b23e4d5971d8ab7ae60/orig.mp4?Expires=1775725435&Signature=NXjF0yT3HR7wuKfVwPxX8SNv2G2dORz15cAUV~7REb5XixVKxN0AefZlgjZNwamuWyxtVzbIsnNQgyRwj4lfgLfILbzROh2K~30AJjSSFHR3fhitzM-EML5Sqfb2lcMvS46C69D2EMT-0uvTBAwh8H6-o6ASnoI0iJC18d~uMKFlMuz1XGU5smzDzuxLoowOu0lxvEESIvHtOadzs1LF7ofzgiOo28sQwbxN30J4V8I2aqxw1p9ixSAWmVtA~bXU2XknLaAV7~b04go2NdzO9b7h9Jg2j0QfcYWXFb5Ea-qEGOz-5ZCea1xCYH2C73lW8EK64m3--KmPRKVMeKOg5A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The California Board of Behavioral Sciences’ Policy and Advocacy Committee voted July 31 to advance a phased plan of changes intended to reduce barriers to clinical licensure for marriage and family therapists, clinical social workers and professional clinical counselors.
Staff told the committee the package is intended to be implemented in phases. Phase 1 — the item considered July 31 — contains regulatory and statutory clarifications that staff said can be implemented with relatively limited systems work and which they plan to pursue as a legislative proposal in the January 2026 cycle. Roseanne Helms, legislative manager, described the package and the policy goals: to reduce unnecessary barriers while protecting public safety and avoiding unintended harm to applicants already in the pipeline.
Key proposed Phase 1 changes shown to the committee include: allow associates to choose when to take the California law and ethics exam rather than requiring annual attempts until they pass; place a seven‑year limit on how old a law & ethics or clinical exam score or qualifying experience may be for initial licensure or for obtaining a subsequent registration; extend registration length and allowable age of supervised experience hours from six to seven years; and create a limited, one‑time two‑consecutive‑year hardship extension allowing an applicant with a subsequent registration to complete hours in a single private practice or professional corporation when the board finds good cause. The proposed extension would require application and documentation and staff said it would be narrowly limited to avoid exploitation.
Staff said the seven‑year alignment is intended to simplify applicants’ planning and to harmonize the age limits for experience and exam scores. The committee discussed operational details including whether an applicant who applies for a hardship extension should be permitted to “commence or continue” work while the board reviews the request. Committee members and staff agreed to clarify the language to read \"shall not commence or continue\" work in a private practice or professional corporation until the board approves the extension, and to add implementation and application timing options so that applicants and employers can coordinate effective dates.
Committee members and stakeholder speakers supported the overall approach; several asked for implementation details be refined so that processing times do not create abrupt care disruptions. Shanti (association representative) and Ben Caldwell (MFT) both voiced support and submitted technical questions for staff to address prior to board consideration. After discussion the committee voted to direct staff to refine language and bring the package to the board as a legislative proposal. The motion passed.","The Board of Behavioral Sciences committee on July 31 approved forwarding a phased plan to ease licensure steps for LMFTs, LCSWs and LPCCs, including allowing associates to choose when to take the California law and ethics exam and aligning exam and experience credit to a seven‑year window.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6146403,"California board moves to clarify experience rules for licensed educational psychologists",1213,478000,1691000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5527861-552d21bfc1e4e7932b653814067cfc3d&start=478&end=1691","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5527861-552d21bfc1e4e7932b653814067cfc3d/thumbnail_478000.jpg","/articles/6146403/California/California-board-moves-to-clarify-experience-rules-for-licensed-educational-psychologists","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146403-e02969c048ce1e4df0bc6a1058c80e8d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775725435&Signature=eMXYHRfUoC~yoclfnrKyhxv7n8GMy~R38DsOakfDibzTBMtLMABoMP2xttdYh-eEILo3~7B0e9i4cTIDPab7GCtrhpXHfFY9SPpHyekUSuRlZlKNB~m5VKztjkAvvwwc3GPjhgZUA9aVla4gwJNmVpPfoe~7FGaZ5Qg4t3VOiLScxYK951Wv9ZJ9-Xrs0~36-utPFQ9pBUtWrNtPioXYVBP0sdsClQylicyMmaokvoa6pJV7rXZAoc5exyCaWmdHwwvq~CqcW1XVsbG5qMDkyhKBGxpjpU8-QhiFjs5iS9xrgzRa8Zyb4esgPQcZxbABrGm~C91SKPgbqcTtX-5X5A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The California Board of Behavioral Sciences’ Policy and Advocacy Committee on July 31 recommended the board begin rulemaking to amend experience and supervision requirements for licensed educational psychologists (LEPs), saying recent legislation and staff work have left gaps in the regulations. Chair Chris Jones opened the item and staff described changes they plan if SB 775 is enacted.
The proposed regulatory package would remove regulatory language that will be covered by statute, set clearer rules for when experience earned in private or parochial schools or through temporary employment agencies qualifies, require supervisors to certify under penalty of perjury that an applicant performed the full range of school‑psychologist duties, and define what “under the direction of an LEP” means for the one‑year supervised experience. “We’re talking about amendments to the LEP regulations, and we've discussed potential rulemaking changes at a couple of prior committee meetings,” said Christy Shields, regulations counsel for the board.
Staff noted the statutory changes in SB 775 (pending) would (per staff) specify experience must be no more than six years old, clarify school‑term and school‑year definitions, and permit the board to add an age limit for passing exam scores; the regulation work would follow the statute. The proposed regulations would require that supervisors hold an active, unrestricted California LEP license while supervising, prohibit supervisors from having financial or personal business or therapeutic relationships with supervisees, and require supervisors be competent in the supervised areas.
Committee members pressed whether supervisors must complete formal supervisor training. John Sobek, LMFT, asked, “Is there actually, like, a supervision training that LEPs are required to take before they supervise?” Staff and members answered there is no statewide supervisory certification for LEPs as there is for other license types; supervision expectations are set by credentialing and local school structures. Staff and committee members agreed to revisit supervisory qualification standards in a future discussion but kept the present package focused on aligning regs to the statute and filling immediate administrative gaps.
After discussion the committee voted to recommend the board approve the proposed regulatory text and to direct staff to submit the package and take needed steps to initiate rulemaking after statutory enactment. The motion passed unanimously.
The committee package and the staff memo describe the mechanics staff will propose for documenting experience, the certification language required of private or parochial employers and temp agencies, and the definitions that will be used for “supervision” and “competency.” If the board accepts the committee’s recommendation, staff will forward regulatory text to the Department of Consumer Affairs and proceed with the rulemaking process once SB 775 (if enacted) is effective.","The Board of Behavioral Sciences’ policy committee recommended initiating rulemaking to align regulations with pending statute changes, clarify allowable private/parochial and temp-agency experience, define supervision standards and documentation, and add exam score age limits for Licensed Educational Psychologists (LEPs).",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6146389,"Board staff reports progress on SB 775, other sponsored bills and pending rulemakings",124,5893000,6017000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5527861-552d21bfc1e4e7932b653814067cfc3d&start=5893&end=6017","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5527861-552d21bfc1e4e7932b653814067cfc3d/thumbnail_5893000.jpg","/articles/6146389/California/Board-staff-reports-progress-on-SB-775-other-sponsored-bills-and-pending-rulemakings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146389-996a1cd63ebf2a8dd509f481552886a2/orig.mp4?Expires=1775725435&Signature=Kx15OjSZ~wmkH9xM-wHElo5hiDmvnIxUr4ldkzboD8JmO2aRT-dP79kSgu7jRpBa~g0hfY9YJuM9sGZMaBIz7ZS91w1SafNISxih8OmTUPyNJinH9V0IavY25KNUA3m26DAeZlVH~UOvkBQd2loL4mwbPjK8eQ5TMBeyWHewqZyUqQGEm~6XKRNVCRTr~pPdtD5opTtaOifS-nD4CR-yF5m4Y57Qw6QWhiDf4xlvt0gW8kGsO-QUxRKpBGXcrtxebnnY1UNay4QwkQRTur0g34F7ou0FZTla3FKUEKKBzyQAKFPffBxG6qIxazI9HmXVKL3sdCAXedROg3Ew6SfySw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Board staff provided a status update on legislation the board sponsors or has taken positions on and on pending rulemaking projects.
Roseanne Helms reported SB 775 (the board’s sunset bill) is progressing through policy committees and will next move to appropriations when the legislature reconvenes. She noted the board’s sponsored provisions (including the temporary practice extension and changes discussed in earlier items) are in the bill and staff is tracking amendments.
Christie Berger, regulatory manager, updated the committee on rulemaking tracks. The disciplinary guidelines package is under review at the director’s office with staff seeking an implementation date of July 2026; telehealth regulations were submitted to OAL on July 8 and are in the 30‑day review period; continuing education and English‑as‑a‑second‑language exam accommodations are in production‑phase preparation; the advertising regulation received modified text comments and staff will bring responses to the board in August; and deregulation/clean‑up items are being prepared for production and anticipated for July 2026 implementation timing.
Committee members had no substantive objections; staff asked stakeholders to continue to provide implementation questions and to work offline on technical clarifications. The committee received public comments indicating stakeholder associations will help educate members about forthcoming changes.","Staff updated the committee on the status of SB 775, other board‑sponsored legislation, and several rulemaking packages including disciplinary guidelines, telehealth rules, continuing education, advertising changes and a proposed deregulation package.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6146394,"Committee backs SB 775 amendment to extend temporary practice allowance and require signed jurisdictional attestation",179,5467000,5646000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5527861-552d21bfc1e4e7932b653814067cfc3d&start=5467&end=5646","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5527861-552d21bfc1e4e7932b653814067cfc3d/thumbnail_5467000.jpg","/articles/6146394/California/Committee-backs-SB-775-amendment-to-extend-temporary-practice-allowance-and-require-signed-jurisdictional-attestation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146394-560adffefc046c13678b33161db4410c/orig.mp4?Expires=1775725435&Signature=a3A4e0hojIgxJ5VMU2m-BaOATcAstjR~zt5rGq6uXjb~hac8SA-dp4~oF3nk3cQz9vJKhGNYA77CpCvsxYZiJvoee6oZh59RqIXsCIap5oMKnL8fAZPAe5XIoVyki2HhV-AiGcTGzAzLbnj88-5gIcL0hf0tL9zGX-O0iWcxm2YOxK4rRDFnd7qTur5~QouShUbAKKhIL~x-zI1e~6NexCHeLS6eLe6SyiiR9UWirb6M~rVO9qCu-3nuLQ9LRmdwxTWmyuoBSzS0YmyiCgpoChHq3pOlRcqluG0i83QcodDvo3MGRyKhuuCQt5GTQynv-xllyjcs35QAi8B3xbF-Ow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Policy and Advocacy Committee on July 31 recommended the board support an amendment to SB 775 that would extend the board’s temporary practice allowance and add an accountability step for out‑of‑state practitioners using the allowance.
SB 775 is the board’s sunset bill; staff told the committee the bill would extend the board’s Sunset date to Jan. 1, 2030 and contains multiple staff‑sponsored amendments. One amendment discussed at the committee’s request would extend the temporary practice allowance — a 30‑day allowance adopted in 2023 that allows an out‑of‑state licensee to continue treating an existing client who is visiting or relocating to California — through Jan. 1, 2030. Staff said the committee that originally created the temporary practice allowance included an initial sunset date to allow lawmakers to evaluate practical effects; the board now seeks a four‑year extension.
The legislative committee handling the bill has requested an additional change: require any out‑of‑state licensee who provides services under the temporary practice allowance to submit a signed statement under penalty of perjury acknowledging the board’s jurisdiction and agreeing to comply with California law. Roseanne Helms explained the amendment is intended to strengthen accountability and make clear that the practitioner consents to California disciplinary jurisdiction; staff said enforcement is still complaint‑driven and that the signed attestation would be a statutory support for enforcement.
The committee voted to recommend the board take a support position on the SB 775 amendments described in the packet, including the temporary practice‑allowance extension and the signed attestation requirement. Stakeholder representatives at the meeting indicated continued support; staff said SB 775 has passed policy committees and would next proceed through appropriations and the remaining legislative steps.","The committee supported a new SB 775 provision to extend the board’s temporary practice allowance through 2030 and to require out‑of‑state practitioners using the temporary allowance to sign a statement under penalty of perjury accepting California jurisdiction and law.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board proposes narrowing pastoral‑counseling exemption to faith‑based services and clarifying limits

Board committee backs phased plan to ease licensure steps for therapists

California board moves to clarify experience rules for licensed educational psychologists

Board staff reports progress on SB 775, other sponsored bills and pending rulemakings

Committee backs SB 775 amendment to extend temporary practice allowance and require signed jurisdictional attestation