The Workforce Development Committee on Oct. 24 took an initial step toward a multi‑year overhaul of LMFT education requirements, including possible changes to how California evaluates degrees earned in and outside the state, how remediation should be handled, and whether program accreditation should be treated as sufficient evidence of meeting degree requirements.

Steve Sodergren, Executive Officer, presented a high‑level comparison of LMFT education policy in three other jurisdictions and summarized California’s current approach: California requires an integrated graduate degree with specified competencies and certain practicum elements; out‑of‑state degrees and remediation pathways have historically been treated differently. Sodergren proposed a single consolidated framework that would apply regardless of where a degree was earned and remove the in‑state/out‑of‑state distinction. The draft would preserve a qualifying 60‑semester unit (90 quarter unit) integrated graduate degree with a practicum component (minimum practicum units and direct client contact) but allow some required content gaps to be remediated through graduate coursework while placing shorter, board‑wide supplemental requirements (for example, a seven‑hour child abuse reporting course; telehealth; suicide prevention) into continuing‑education or supplemental formats.

Committee members and stakeholders debated accreditation recognition. Staff noted California already recognizes COAMFT‑accredited LMFT programs and that several LMFT programs are COAMFT accredited; staff also reported some LPCC programs are CACREP‑accredited. Public commenters and educators urged caution about automatically accepting accreditation as a pass‑through without reviewing California‑specific content (for example, child abuse reporting and California law, suicide prevention, cultural competence). Several commenters recommended that, if the board accepts accredited programs as meeting core coursework, the board still require California‑specific supplemental training for statutes and reporting obligations.

Public commenters and counselor educators also raised workforce considerations: ease of licensure portability, the need to reduce unnecessary barriers, and the value of flexibility in course sequencing to support nontraditional and hybrid programs. Elise Springer, volunteer policy chair at Postpartum Support International California, urged the board to include perinatal/peripartum mental‑health content across LMFT education, citing state maternal mortality review findings on pregnancy‑associated suicide and preventability.

The committee did not adopt regulations or a final framework at the meeting. Staff said the next steps will be to prepare a draft statutory/proposed regulatory outline for the LMFT education section, assemble 2–3 subject‑matter experts (educators experienced in LMFT programs) to advise on qualifying degree content and practicum requirements, and return to the committee to discuss remediation thresholds and supplemental coursework specifics. Committee members asked that staff solicit feedback from training programs and professional associations and that the item remain on future agendas for iterative review.