Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workforce Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Draft workforce surveys show urban concentration, private practice prevalence and supervision shortfalls
Summary
Staff presented draft comparative survey reports for six BSRB professions showing variable response rates (behavior analysts ~14%, psychology ~28%, professional counseling ~26%), strong urban concentration, common private practice settings, lower‑than‑expected telehealth hours, and concerns about supervisor availability; advisory committees will review part 2 with open‑text responses.
Staff presented draft comparative survey reports and appendices to the board on May 12, summarizing responses from six professions regulated by the Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board.
Method and availability: The surveys were optional and anonymous, administered through SurveyMonkey; draft profession‑specific reports and appendices with open‑text responses are posted on the BSRB website. Staff told the board part 1 summarizes multiple‑choice items and that part 2 will analyze open‑field answers.
Response rates and sample sizes: Response rates varied by profession: licensed psychology ~28.4% (297 respondents), marriage and family therapy ~25–26% (296 total across levels), master's‑level psychology clinical subgroups up to ~44.9% for some tiers, professional counseling overall ~26.6% (716 respondents), and behavior analysis ~13.9% (68 respondents) with assistant behavior analysts a very small sample. Staff noted addiction‑counseling results were presented separately.
Key findings: Most respondents reported practicing in urban areas, though some professions (certain master's‑level groups and behavior analysts) show higher rural representation. Private practice is the dominant employment setting for several professions (e.g., LCPCs, LMFTs), while education and public‑practice settings account for smaller shares. Telehealth/remote services hours were lower than some board members expected: many respondents reported less than five hours per week of telehealth. Supervision capacity was a recurring theme: many licensees supervise one or two people, and board members flagged a need for more supervisors to support workforce development.
Other workforce notes: Survey items also queried years in practice, multistate licensure/compact readiness, retirement plans (a minority expect to retire within five years), and familiarity with advisory committees (most respondents were not familiar with advisory‑committee work). Staff recommended advisory committees review open‑text responses and use the findings to inform policy discussions (including alternative licensure pathways and supervision supports).
The board thanked staff for the analysis, noted the value of the data for workforce planning, and asked advisory committees to review part 2 of the report at their June meetings. No board action was taken on the survey results at this meeting.
