Kansas BSRB reports survey results pointing to workforce, supervision and rural access concerns

The Kansas Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board’s Marriage and Family Therapy Advisory Committee reviewed draft results of a licensee survey that the board said was intended to inform policy and workforce planning.

The draft report, presented by BSRB Executive Director David Fye, summarizes responses from 296 marriage and family therapy licensees statewide. “We held it open for 31 days from January 24 through February 23,” Fye said, and reported an approximately 25% response rate overall. The survey covered demographics, practice settings, supervision, telehealth use, continuing education needs and opinions about multistate licensure.

Why it matters: The BSRB said the information will help the board and advisory committees identify training priorities, supervision shortages and possible statutory or regulatory changes to improve public protection and workforce stability.

Most licensees who answered said they work in private practice and in urban counties; for example, Sedgwick and Johnson counties were the most commonly listed practice locations. The draft report shows 75% of LMFT-level respondents and 79% of clinical-level (LCMFT) respondents practice in private settings. Median direct in-person client hours for LMFT respondents clustered in the 10-to-20-hour-per-week range, while clinical-level respondents more often reported 20-to-40 hours per week.

Supervision and workforce: The survey asked LMFT respondents whether they were actively pursuing the clinical-level license. Of 66 LMFT respondents, 43 said they were actively working toward LCMFT licensure; others cited difficulty passing the clinical exam, financial costs of repeated examination attempts, lack of interest, or that a clinical license was not required for their current job. For supervisors, the survey found most supervising clinicians oversee one to five supervisees when they answered the question; an unintended survey omission (no explicit “0” option) led many to choose “prefer not to answer,” the draft report noted.

Retirement and multi-state practice: Most respondents said they do not plan to retire in the next five years, though clinical-level practitioners were more likely than LMFT-level respondents to report planning to retire or to be unsure. The survey also asked about interest in a multistate licensure compact; among LMFT respondents the interest was high. Fye presented the compact model used for social work as the illustrative approach for the question.

Telehealth and access: Respondents reported telehealth increases access—particularly in rural areas—but raised recurring concerns about client location requirements, cross-state continuity of care, confidentiality, connectivity and regulatory clarity. Many respondents said telehealth is valuable but not suitable for all clients, especially some children.

Training gaps and practice concerns: Respondents identified areas needing more continuing education or supervision, including documentation, trauma-informed care, working with children, ADHD and neurodivergence, EMDR, suicide assessment and planning, and court- or forensic-related documentation. Ethical concerns raised in clinical-level responses included boundaries, billing practices, dual relationships, non–evidence-based practices, and the need for greater clarity on standards across professions.

Next steps and distribution: Fye said the BSRB staff compiled the draft reports for six professions regulated by the board; each report includes full appendices of open-text responses for context. He encouraged advisory members to review the appendices and suggested the reports could be used to inform board priorities, advisory committee agendas, outreach to other state agencies and potential presentations. “This is not a standard that other small, fee-funded agencies are doing. We’re kind of putting ourselves out there,” Fye said.

The advisory committee discussed possibilities for follow-up, including targeted educational forums, additional analysis comparing themes across professions, and using the data to support recruitment of supervisors and rural providers. The committee also requested the BSRB to continue refining the reports for final publication and to circulate them to advisory members before the next meeting.

Ending: Committee members agreed to review the draft appendices before the next meeting and asked staff to return with refined reports and possible next-step recommendations in June.