Committee opens research into pastoral counseling exemptions, directs staff to refine options

The Policy and Advocacy Committee discussed Jan. 24 the board’s exemption for pastoral or faith‑based counseling and directed staff to continue research and present options to clarify when pastoral counseling is exempt from licensure.

Sarita Riso, special projects and research analyst for the Board of Behavioral Sciences, summarized state‑level approaches and academic definitions. She noted the board’s current exemption language permits counseling performed as part of ministerial or pastoral duties but that enforcement staff have received complaints alleging behavior that appears to be private practice — for example, individuals providing counseling outside a religious institution and charging fees. Riso cited research and sample statutory language from Texas, Florida, Arizona and other states and a 2005 American Association of Pastoral Counselors definition that distinguished pastoral counselors who practice clinically and seek licensure from lay persons providing faith‑based support.

Committee members raised enforcement and constitutional concerns. Kristy Shields, legal counsel, explained the challenge: California’s Constitution protects free exercise of religion, which limits how the board can regulate faith‑based activity. "The problem area is knowing where that line is when there's a practice that's faith based, versus someone actually acting in the capacity of a licensee for remuneration," Shields said, describing past investigations that were stymied by vague statutory language.

Members discussed potential clarifications staff might explore, including whether exemptions should be limited to counseling performed under the auspices of a religious entity, whether charging fees should remove an exemption, and whether statutes could include factors that help distinguish ministerial counseling from professional therapeutic practice. Several committee members emphasized the risk of spiritual abuse when clergy hold themselves out with the trappings of a private practice.

Public commenters representing professional organizations said they support clarification. Sarita Riso and staff will continue research and bring options back to the committee for further consideration; the committee did not adopt specific statutory language at this meeting.