Board directs staff to revise disciplinary guidelines for substance‑related cases after public and member concerns

The California Board of Psychology on Aug. 22 directed staff to redraft proposed revisions to the regulatory disciplinary guidelines that govern “substance‑abusing licensees,” after extensive public comment and board discussion.

The board considered a draft that would have updated Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 1395.2 (disciplinary guidelines) to reflect statutory and procedural changes and to align with department uniform standards. Several board members and numerous public commenters raised concerns about specific provisions in the draft, particularly a proposed minimum five‑year probation term for some violations, a 30‑day compliance timeline for locating monitors or evaluators, and whether a psychological evaluation should be a mandatory standard condition.

Dr. Harpsheets told the board “a standard 5 year, probationary period seems unreasonable,” and several speakers representing the California Psychological Association and individual licensees asked for greater flexibility, retention of 90‑day compliance windows for some conditions and removal of psychological evaluations as an automatic requirement. Ty Barindi of the California Psychological Association asked that the guidelines preserve the board’s full range of administrative options, including educational letters and citations, for lesser infractions.

Board members also discussed tolling and nonpractice while on probation. One board member described situations in which licensees practicing out of state under other jurisdictions’ oversight had remained on California probation for many years. Members asked staff and the enforcement committee to specifically review tolling language and how long nonpractice should be allowed before it itself constitutes a compliance problem.

After discussion the board voted not to adopt the draft as written. Instead it passed a motion directing staff to make additional revisions reflecting the meeting’s concerns — including reconsideration of any mandatory five‑year minimums, the role and optionality of psychological evaluations, compliance timeframes (board members suggested restoring 90‑day windows in some cases), tolling language and clearer references to the board’s spectrum of administrative actions — and to return the revised package for board review at a future meeting.

The board asked staff to consult with the enforcement committee and to incorporate public comments the board had received in advance of the meeting.