Board committee backs phased plan to ease licensure steps for therapists

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.