Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Requirements Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee launches holistic review of LMFT and LPCC education requirements
Summary
Staff proposed a comprehensive review of in‑state and out‑of‑state education requirements for LMFT and LPCC licensure to resolve inequities, standardize essential course content, and explore program approval mechanisms.
The Board of Behavioral Sciences Workforce Development Committee opened a holistic review of education requirements for licensed marriage and family therapists (LMFT) and licensed professional clinical counselors (LPCC), aiming to reduce inequities between in‑state and out‑of‑state applicants and to clarify coursework and timing rules.
Steve Suttergreen, executive officer, framed the review’s goals: “the main goal is to eliminate some of the inequities that exist between, in state, out of state applicants and definitely eliminate the confusion of the requirements,” he said, and proposed a multi‑step review including a comprehensive comparison of current California requirements, an analysis of other states’ approaches, and consideration of more formal program‑level recognition or approval to reduce transcript‑by‑transcript review workloads.
Staff traced the evolution of the requirements: after the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) changes in 2004, California expanded LMFT curriculum expectations, leading to statutory updates (Senate Bill 33 in 2010) and subsequent LPCC standards (Senate Bill 788). Staff told the committee the historical changes contributed to today's complexity, including rules that limit post‑degree remediation for some applicants and differing remediation allowances for out‑of‑state applicants.
Suttergreen said the committee’s next steps will include mapping current coursework expectations, identifying consistent core content for each license type, and exploring whether a program‑level acknowledgement or approval process would reduce application delays: “we would also look at the core content of each degree pro or core content of the requirements and what's necessary for each license type,” he said.
Public commenters and stakeholders supported the review. Ben Caldwell, an LMFT and educator, encouraged the committee to include attention to program accreditation differences (for example, CACREP accreditation’s role for counseling programs) and offered academic participation in the review. A stakeholder commenter recommended adding a specific long‑term goal to “identify and reduce disparity in the licensing process.”
Staff did not propose any immediate regulatory change at this meeting but will return with a structured review plan and opportunities for stakeholder input.
