Board of Behavioral Sciences committee reviews survey results, begins review of LMFT education pathways

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The Board of Behavioral Sciences’ Workforce Development Committee met July 31 by teleconference and reviewed results of anonymous surveys of educators, students and registrants about education and practicum requirements for licensed marriage and family therapists (LMFTs) and licensed professional clinical counselors (LPCCs). Committee members directed staff to research a single, consolidated education pathway based on the board’s post‑2012 standards and to compare other states’ approaches. The committee also approved the April 4, 2025 committee minutes.

Committee staff said two surveys distributed in May 2025 produced 35 educator responses and 214 student/registrant responses. Serita ("Rita") Russo, research analyst, summarized key findings: educators rated student preparation for clinical practice at an average of about 66 on a 0–100 scale (0 = not prepared, 100 = fully prepared); student and registrant respondents averaged 75. Russo said common themes included unpaid or low‑paid practicum placements, inconsistency in supervision quality, and gaps in training for serving rural and other diverse populations.

The educator survey (35 responses) showed roughly 83% of respondents identified as faculty; about 40% hold AMFT/APCC supervisor roles and about 29% serve as clinical training directors. Most educators reported working at private universities (about 67%), with 23% at public universities. Russo said 89% of 35 respondents indicated their school offers an LMFT program; among 29 respondents about 83% said their school has an LPCC program. On specific preparedness questions, she reported that about 48% of LMFT educator respondents and 29% of LPCC educator respondents said students are not prepared to serve rural clients.

On content and training, both educators and students recommended adding or strengthening coursework and training in treatment planning and interventions, trauma‑informed care, assessment/diagnosis/prognosis, and substance use/co‑occurring disorders. Approximately 48% of surveyed LPCC educators and 40% of surveyed students and registrants said more focus should be devoted to substance use disorders and addiction. Many respondents asked for paid practicum positions, clearer practicum site guidance, more hands‑on training, and improved supervision quality.

Steve Suckren, executive officer, presented a proposal to begin a methodical review of LMFT (and later LPCC) education requirements with the goal of consolidating the current multiple pathways into a single pathway based on the board’s post‑2012 standards (Business and Professions Code, post‑2012 requirements cited by staff). He outlined three central questions for the review: whether qualifying degrees must be an "integrated" course of study; whether requirements should emphasize content, competency, or both; and whether it remains feasible to treat degrees as in‑state versus out‑of‑state given online programs. Suckren described differences among current pathways, including unit and practicum hour requirements: pre‑2012 in‑state pathways permit remediation while registered as an associate and require 150 face‑to‑face practicum hours; post‑2012 and out‑of‑state pathways require 225 face‑to‑face practicum hours (with up to 75 hours allowed for client‑centered advocacy), with remediation rules that vary by pathway.

Suckren recommended staff develop a skeleton draft consolidating statutory content and core competencies (he cited the post‑2012 statutory framework in Business and Professions Code) and then return with a comparative analysis of other states, accreditation standards (for example, COAMFTE), and proposed draft language for committee discussion. Committee members and public commenters encouraged a methodical process, urged attention to timing of outreach to universities, and stressed concern about the financial burden of added requirements. Dr. Annette Walker and others emphasized keeping stakeholders informed and prioritizing areas the committee can act on while identifying matters outside the board’s purview.

Public commenters included Shanti Edstrom of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT), who urged staff to share survey findings with programs and offered CAMFT help developing resources; Ben Caldwell, MFT, thanked staff for the surveys but cautioned that the educator sample (35 respondents) was small and recommended more robust data collection. Committee members acknowledged the small educator sample but said the results echoed issues commonly raised at board meetings.

Suckren also explained that the board is moving toward the national AMFTRB examination for licensure and plans to retain a California law and ethics exam to assess California‑specific legal and ethical competencies. He said staff would present a draft consolidation and comparative research at a future meeting; timing will depend on the scope of issues identified.

Votes at a glance A motion to approve the April 4, 2025 committee meeting minutes was moved by Justin Haft and seconded by a committee member (second not specified in the record). Members recorded as voting yes during roll call: Justin (displayed as "Justin Huff" in the roll call exchange), Wendy Strack, Eleonora Uribe and Dr. Annette Walker. The chair announced "Motion carried." Outcome: approved.

Next steps and context Staff recommended the committee direct a formal review comparing California’s post‑2012 education standards with other states and accreditation expectations, develop a single, consolidated draft of core content and competencies, and identify which remediation pathways and practicum standards remain appropriate. Several committee members suggested moving outreach‑focused items (supervisor outreach, scholarships/grants webpage) to the Outreach and Education Committee. No regulatory changes were adopted at the meeting; the committee directed staff to prepare further research and draft language for future deliberation.