The California Board of Behavioral Sciences Policy & Advocacy Committee on Oct. 24 reviewed safety and implementation concerns that have arisen since SB 1024, a 2024 statute effective in 2025, changed the board’s required notice to consumers to ensure license transparency for telehealth and in‑person practice.

The discussion centered on two problems staff identified: (1) clinicians who work with incarcerated populations reported that disclosing their full name and license number to people in jails or other secure settings could expose clinicians and their families to harassment or retaliation; and (2) stakeholders asked whether the notice must be provided only before “psychotherapy services” begin or before any activity within a licensee’s scope of practice (for example, assessments, consultations or supervision). Roseanne Helms, Legislative Manager for the board, summarized the bill and the concerns, noting the statute requires licensees and registrants to provide full name as on file with the board, license or registration number, license/registration type and expiration date prior to initiating psychotherapy services.

Leahina Claytor, a licensed clinical social worker who treats people in a county jail inpatient psychiatric unit, told the committee the notice poses real dangers for clinicians and their families. “If I’m continued to be required to share my full name and license number, I lose that final layer of protection,” Claytor said, describing how inmates can sometimes obtain identifying information and that she relies on anonymity when she is off‑duty. As an alternative she suggested relying on existing in‑facility grievance systems so incarcerated patients could file complaints without clinicians having to post identifying information publicly; grievance investigators could access full clinician details internally if needed.

Committee members pressed staff and the speaker for details about how grievance systems work in county jails, whether records are retained, whether there is cross‑reporting to contracting vendors and whether inmates receive meaningful, external avenues to file complaints. John Sobek, LMFT committee member, asked questions about intake documentation and whether consent is signed or documented verbally; Claytor said she documents verbal informed consent in the facility medical record and that those notes are accessible to county and Department of State Hospitals staff overseeing the contract. Shanti Azrin, representing the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, said her organization will review the issue and provide further input.

Committee members, including Kelly Ranasini and Wendy Strack, said they were concerned both with protecting clinicians’ safety and ensuring consumers — including incarcerated people — have an accessible route to learn about a provider’s credentials and to file complaints. Roseanne Helms clarified that any statutory change would require legislation and would likely take at least a year; she also noted regulatory changes may take a similar amount of time. Several members recommended staff assemble more detailed information and bring experts from state hospital and correctional programs to the next committee meeting.

Rather than move a legislative proposal at the Oct. 24 meeting, the committee directed staff to return with a more detailed presentation that includes representatives from state hospital and correctional care programs, a description of in‑facility grievance processes, and options for limited or alternative disclosure methods for high‑risk settings. The committee did not take a formal vote on a legislative recommendation at the meeting.

Committee members emphasized they must balance consumer protection — the right of patients to know credentials — with employee safety in settings where disclosure could present a real security risk. Staff will prepare additional materials and witnesses for a future committee meeting to inform whether the board should pursue legislation, regulatory action, or new guidance.

The committee’s discussion made clear any change to the notice requirement would involve either a legislative amendment to SB 1024 or a regulatory approach, both of which would require additional public process and time before taking effect.