Committee reviews surveys and proposes single-pathway review for LMFT, LPCC education

The Workforce Development Committee of the Board of Behavioral Sciences reviewed anonymous surveys of educators and students and discussed a staff proposal to consolidate multiple licensure education pathways into a single, clearer standard based on post‑2012 requirements.

Committee chair Wendy Strack opened the item and Serita Russo, research analyst, summarized the survey results, saying the educator and student questionnaires “were distributed in May 2025” and that 35 educators and 214 students/registrants responded. Educator respondents averaged about 66 on a 0–100 scale when asked whether current requirements prepare students for clinical practice; student and registrant respondents averaged about 75.

The surveys identified unpaid or low‑paying practicum placements, inconsistent supervision quality, and gaps in training on treatment planning, trauma‑informed care and substance use disorders as common barriers. Serita Russo told the committee the educator survey included 27 questions and the student/registrant survey 14 questions and that open‑response items are summarized in attachments to the staff memo.

Executive officer Steve Suckren framed the policy questions the committee must consider, including whether qualifying degrees must be “integrated,” whether requirements should emphasize course content or competency, and how to treat in‑state versus out‑of‑state degrees and online programs. Suckren said the committee should consider “creating a single pathway for the education based upon post‑2012 requirements” and asked staff to compare other states and accreditation standards and to draft language for further discussion.

Members and public commenters urged caution in interpreting the survey data because of the low educator response rate. LMFT member Justin (recorded in the transcript as Justin Hough) noted the small educator sample and said the results represent a small fraction of the licensed population and should be “taken with every grain of salt.” Public commenter Ben Caldwell, MFT, echoed that point and asked the committee not to overinterpret percent‑based findings.

Representatives of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) supported the idea of reviewing and simplifying pathways while balancing oversight and avoiding unnecessary barriers. CAMFT attendee Shanti Edstrom encouraged staff to share topical survey findings with educational programs so schools can consider curriculum adjustments.

Discussion items identified for further staff work included: assembling core LMFT content areas and competencies; deciding whether a degree must be officially “integrated”; identifying which deficiencies could be remediated and at what academic level; clarifying practicum hour and face‑to‑face requirements; and aligning any standard with national accreditation and examination changes. Committee members recommended producing a bare‑bones skeleton draft to focus subsequent meetings and public engagement.

No formal change to licensure law or regulation was adopted at this meeting. The committee directed staff to research education and licensure frameworks in other states, review accreditation standards, and develop draft language for future committee discussion. Staff said they will return with comparative research and a draft framework for member and stakeholder review.

The committee also discussed timing and prioritization, with members asking staff to be transparent about which topics are within the committee’s authority and which are outside its purview so stakeholders can understand boundaries and expected timelines.