Committee backs phased changes to licensure pathway for LMFTs, LCSWs and LPCCs; extends some timing limits to seven years

The Policy and Advocacy Committee on July 31 reviewed and recommended staff pursue a multi-phase plan to restructure licensure pathways for licensed marriage and family therapists (LMFT), licensed clinical social workers (LCSW) and licensed professional clinical counselors (LPCC). The committee approved a motion directing staff to make discussed amendments and to prepare a legislative proposal for the board.

Phase 1 changes presented by staff would: allow associates to choose when to take the California Law and Ethics (L&E) exam instead of requiring annual attempts before renewal; set a seven-year age limit on L&E and clinical exam scores for eligibility and subsequent registration; extend the registration validity and the allowable age of supervised experience from six to seven years; and create a one-time, two‑consecutive‑year hardship extension permitting an associate with a subsequent registration number to complete supervised hours in private practice if the associate, supervisor and employer jointly request it and show good cause.

Staff said the change to a seven-year limit across exams and experience aligns timing and provides applicants more flexibility, citing common life events that can interrupt candidates’ ability to complete hours within current windows. The package also deletes a requirement that candidates retake the L&E exam if they have not passed the clinical exam within seven years — staff explained aligning the L&E age limit makes that older requirement unnecessary. The LEP profession’s rules differ and staff proposed only the seven-year alignment for LEPs; other LEP-specific changes were discussed separately.

Committee members and outside stakeholders raised implementation and public-protection concerns: ensuring expedited board review for hardship extension requests, avoiding gaps in client care if a subsequent registration prevents continuing work until approval, and guarding against exploitation if employers tried to use extensions repeatedly. Staff said they expect the hardship-extension process to be an online request with relatively quick turnaround and that the extension would be a one-time allowance. The committee discussed whether the language should say a subsequent registrant “shall not commence or continue” work for a private practice until an extension is approved; the committee agreed to add “or continue” to the draft statute language.

Staff noted phase 2 and phase 3 items (transition to the AMFTRB national exam for LMFT and changing timing of the clinical exam) will require additional systems and implementation work and would be addressed later. The committee voted to direct staff to make the discussed changes and to take a legislative proposal to the board; the motion carried.

Stakeholders including CAMFT, NASW-California and several commenters expressed general support, and committee members directed staff to work out technical language and implementation procedures before the board considers a legislative proposal.