Board committee directs staff to refine MFT "integrated degree" definition and graduate course proposals

The Board of Behavioral Sciences Workforce Development Committee on June 16 discussed and directed staff to refine proposed changes to how qualifying marriage and family therapy (MFT) degrees are defined and what graduate course content will be required for licensure. Acting Chair Dr. Nicholas Boyd led the teleconference meeting in which staff described draft language that would define an "integrated" degree and create narrow exceptions for transfer units when a school closes, for structured combined master’s/doctoral programs, for relevant transferred master's credit, and for certain graduate‑level coursework completed during undergraduate studies.

Legislative manager Roseanne Helms told the committee the changes aim to preserve program cohesion and prevent a "patchwork" of courses assembled from multiple unrelated degrees. "We're proposing a new section defining an integrated degree and establishing some narrow exceptions," Helms said, explaining that the registration unit has seen transcripts that were unclear and that staff would like transferred courses listed on the qualifying transcript with totals added into required units.

Board staff and in‑person representatives from training institutions sought clarification on operational details. A representative from a school explained that current practice often relies on a registrar's letter to explain transferred courses; Helms said the board would prefer the information appear on the official transcript but would still reserve the right to request explanatory letters where the transcript remains unclear. "If it's not clear, they still reserve the right to ask for clarification," she told attendees.

Committee members also discussed the next phase of the project: defining graduate‑level core content and unit expectations. Helms said a team of three subject‑matter experts (SMEs) had been advising staff and that the draft chart distributed to members was a starting point for discussion. The proposed framework keeps most content general while explicitly retaining California‑specific components such as California law and ethics and social and cultural identities in California.

Members debated unit allocations for specific topics and whether practicum experience should be transferable. Dr. Annette Walker said the drafts were "a nice tidy cleaned‑up version" of prior materials, while members representing educators asked how to submit feedback; staff answered that redlines, letters, or email comments were all acceptable. The committee discussed psychopharmacology unit sizing; Helms said some SMEs believed three semester units might be excessive for that particular topic and that staff would follow up with documentation on the SMEs’ rationale.

On motions, the committee voted to direct staff to make discussed and non‑substantive changes to the integrated‑degree language and to continue working with SMEs to refine graduate‑level content and remediation options. Justin Huff (LMFT member) made the motion to continue work with SMEs and incorporate committee feedback; Dr. Annette Walker seconded. The motion carried on roll call.

Next steps: staff will incorporate the committee’s feedback into the draft language and bring a more fully formed, law‑style draft (including remediation options) to a future meeting for additional review. Staff invited feedback from schools in the meantime and said they will provide the SMEs’ written rationale on points such as psychopharmacology unit recommendations.

The committee also signaled that the work on core graduate content will be folded into a larger MFT education project and revisited as the group develops remediation pathways and final draft text.

Ending: The committee adopted motions to continue development; staff will return with revised draft language and SME documentation at a future committee meeting so members can consider final wording and potential unintended consequences.