Committee launches holistic review of LMFT and LPCC education requirements to reduce inequities

The Board of Behavioral Sciences’ Workforce Development Committee directed staff to begin a comprehensive review of in‑state and out‑of‑state educational requirements for licensed marriage and family therapists (LMFTs) and licensed professional clinical counselors (LPCCs).

Steve Sutterdun, Executive Officer, introduced the item as an extension of the licensure pathway discussion, noting that prior changes after the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) and subsequent statute had reshaped coursework requirements. “Since we're doing the pathway changes, we've thought we might as well do another big change here and try to implement this,” Sutterdun said.

Why it matters: Committee members and academic stakeholders said current rules create inequities between applicants who earned degrees in California and those from other states. Some in‑state graduates must complete specified coursework before registration, while out‑of‑state applicants may remediate deficiencies later, producing inconsistent outcomes for applicants and extra workload for Board staff.

What staff proposed and why

Staff outlined goals for a multi‑step review: catalog current LMFT and LPCC coursework requirements and timing; examine other U.S. jurisdictions’ standards; identify core content that could be standardized across license types while preserving scope‑specific requirements; and evaluate whether the Board should adopt a formal program‑approval process to reduce per‑application transcript reviews.

History and context

Staff traced the current landscape to MHSA (2004) and follow‑on legislative changes that updated curriculum requirements; staff cited Senate bills that shaped LMFT and LPCC education rules in the 2010 period and subsequent statutory refinements in 2014 that partly addressed out‑of‑state applicant challenges. Staff also said widespread remote learning has blurred distinctions between in‑state and out‑of‑state programs, complicating transcript reviews.

Stakeholder input

Academic and provider organizations expressed support for the review. Ben Caldwell, LMFT and educator, urged caution about “standardizing” where legitimate differences exist between professions and noted the role of program accreditation (for example, CACREP for counseling programs). Chauncey Esherin of CAMFT and other commenters supported efforts to ensure equitable, updated curricula and said program‑level approval or clearer guidance would reduce evaluation workload.

Next steps

The committee asked staff to return with a more detailed work plan and initial findings at a future meeting; staff said they will present a diagram of current coursework and timing and compare other jurisdictions’ approaches.

Ending note: Committee members and stakeholders broadly supported proceeding with a holistic review and asked staff to consider the role of program approvals, course timing and whether certain remedial coursework should be graduate‑level or continuing education.