The California Board of Behavioral Sciences approved a package of changes on Aug. 22 intended to reduce barriers to licensure for associates across LMFT, LCSW and LPCC practice acts and to align timing rules ahead of longer‑term reforms.

Phase 1 highlights
Staff described the Tier‑1 (phase 1) legislative changes the board instructed staff to pursue in January 2026, including:
- Allowing associates to choose when to take the California law & ethics exam (rather than requiring annual attempts for renewal), while retaining the requirement that a passing score be on file before subsequent registration or licensure issuance.
- Adopting a seven‑year age limit on the California law & ethics exam passing score for subsequent registration and initial license issuance, with a three‑year grace period for applicants active at the time of enactment (proposed to expire 01/01/2030).
- Extending the validity window for qualifying supervised‑experience hours and subsequent registration numbers from six to seven years to align with the exam age limits and simplify transitions if clinical exams are taken early (phase 3 planning).
- Allowing a one‑time, two‑consecutive‑year hardship extension that would permit an associate with a subsequent registration number to obtain supervised hours in a single private practice or professional corporation if the associate and the supervisor/employer submit a good‑cause request and supervision plan to the board.

Why staff proposed this approach
Staff said the changes target common, immediate obstacles — application timing, exam‑score age limits and short expirations for hour credits — without restructuring the clinical exam schedule. They noted phase 3 will address more complex changes to exam timing and earlier exam eligibility, but those changes require more systems work and transitional protections for candidates already in process.

Board discussion and public input
Board members asked staff to clarify application timelines and processing times; staff said they will publish FAQs and communicate proactively. Public commenters (training programs, associations and nonprofit clinic leaders) supported the changes as practical steps to reduce barriers, but urged clear communication and rapid, accessible processing for hardship requests to preserve continuity of care for clients.

Board action
The board voted to direct staff to prepare the legislative proposal and make discussed clarifications to specified code sections (BPC 4980.14; 4996.28; 4996.100, et al.). Staff will draft the bill language and return with the proposed text and implementation plan.

Ending
Board staff will return with draft bill language for the January 2026 cycle and prepare communication materials for stakeholders and employers.