For most, there would be no benefit, and significant added expense. Since licensure is inherently a state-based activity, there is no reason to believe that licensing as an LPCC will make one's license more portable; in fact, a license obtained through grandparenting may have greater trouble getting recognized in another state. Add to that the still-unclear question of whether California will recognize national exams in counseling (national exams in MFT and Clinical Social Work are not recognized in the state), and the likelihood of a portability benefit grows even slimmer. The added expense of two renewal fees could be little more than wasted money.
There is, however, a legitimate reason why some MFTs may want to dually license: They want to reflect what their professional orientation has been all along. California was the first state in the US to license MFTs, and the last in the country to license LPCCs. As a result, some who work under the MFT license do so because that was the masters-level entry point into a career in mental health, and not because they particularly identify with systemic concepts. For those therapists, the Clinical Counselor license is probably a better fit.
They will not, however, want to switch over entirely. Counselors will enter the mental health marketplace in California more than four decades after MFTs did, and will need to fight for themselves every battle MFTs waged and won for recognition in hiring and reimbursement. They'll be able to make up ground, but it will be many years before counselors can claim the kind of recognition and stature in the state that MFTs claim today, thanks to decades of good work by CAMFT and AAMFT.
Posts
8 comments:
Dear Mr. Caldwell,
I am a licensed LMFT and have been practicing in a private practice since 1988. Recently a question came though on my Facebook regarding the acceptance of an LPCC as a license in the California. I received a rebuttal to my comment that this license appears redundant. i'd like to know your opinion, since you have the experience to comment with a history of involvement in the field and therefore a wealth of knowledge. I am inserting the comment advocating the LPCC position. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Cynthia Robles, MFT office@cynthisroblesmft.com
Here is the post I received. Sorry the post is lengthy.
Cynthia Robles, MFT
Hi there Cynthia (and everyone else out there). I personally have been involved in lobbying efforts for the past 7 yrs. or so to make CA the final state to recognize LPC licensure, and am thrilled that SB788 finally passed. Like it or not, we are here!..and contrary to many of the rumors floating out there, we are generally a pretty friendly, competent bunch of clinicians.
I apologize, but I do have a lot to say on this issue.
I agree that when looking at the definitions established by several sources, it is not immediately clear what difference there is between an LPC and any other psychotherapist. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is a huge amt. of overlap between all these various professions. I hope that one day our professions will become more streamlined. However, that being said, for now, upon closer examination (esp. when one looks to specific coursework requirements (groupwork, crisis counseling, career counseling, school counseling, the elderly, addiction and recovery, counseling of the medically ill) the distinctions do become clearer.
In my particular situation, I was trained as an clinical art therapist at what was at the time (1995) the most academically challenging graduate program of its kind, exceeding standards set by the American Art Therapy Association, the whole nine yards. I have been working as an art therapist for about 17 yrs. When life brought me to CA 14 yrs. ago, I made the mistake of assuming that my ATR or at least my LPC would be recognized here. My training fits most comfortably under the LPC umbrella, and in addition, I have a specialty area, Art Therapy. I was advised by the BBS to start a new MA program in CA. This did not set well with me logically or financially, and I thought I might eventually move back out of state so that it would become a moot point.
However, that is not what happened...I got married and made a life for myself here in CA, and after 17 yrs. of experience, working mainly in agencies for children and youth with severe emotional issues, facing crises and trauma, after doing all my graduate work, passing my exams, and providing numerous hours as an unpaid intern...after all that, I have not been considered "licensed", and therefore not eligible for the same rate of pay as my MFT colleages, not allowed to supervise coworkers, not allowed to seek third-party coverage for my private clients. To make matters even worse, when I applied with the Red Cross (federal program) to do crisis work following Hurricane Katrina, they rejected me despite all my years of crisis work, because they were explicitly seeking LPCs, which I no longer was since CA didn't recognize the license.
I have heard lots of similar stories from other out of state LPCs, as well as other folks coming in from out of state...art therapists, Rehabilitation therapists, career counselors.
The situation is quite different in each state, although now (as of January 2010) all 50 states recognize LPCs and MFTs (also a fairly new license in some states) along with LCSWs and Psychologists. In the state of TX, for example, the LPC has been in existence since 1981, and all these professions have co-existed peacefully for the past 20 years. Now tX is a big state, but they have 13,459 LPCs on record and 2805 MFTS, as compared with Michigan, who have 5,587 LPCs, 781 LMFTs, and 15, 031 LCSWs. CA has more MFTs than all the other states combined: 29,456.
Overall, there are more than 100,000 LPCs in the 49 states. If you ever plan to move out of state, you will certainly work alongside us!
A little more.
Cynthia Robles, MFT
Rebuttal cont.
Why is Licensure Needed?
* Provides proof of competency to consumers and employers and assures accountability, should complaints arise.
* Provides consumers with a wider range of mental health professionals competent to work with diverse populations, issues and programs.
* Allows portability of credentials from state to state.
* Third party payments can provide financial support to consumers for services provided by LPC’s.
* Protects consumers’ rights to have confidential information remain confidential.
* Provides opportunities to participate in federally-funded initiatives, including those that require licensure, e.g. Katrina relief efforts.
Grandparenting/reciprocity applications will be available sometime in October, and will be accepted by the BBS in January 2011. There is nothing to prevent an already CA-licensed MFT from applying for LPC as well, if you feel this may be of benefit to you.
I am happy to discuss this further with anyone interested in the nitty-gritty details re: CA LPC. You can also check out www.caccl.org.
Sincerely,
Tabitha Fronk, MA, ATR-BC, CCLS
Registered Board-Certified Art Therapist
Certified Child Life Specialist
Professional Clinical Counselor (soon to be LPCC)
Hi Cynthia- The redundancy question is an interesting one. I was involved in AAMFT-California's opposition to earlier LPC bills, and then the negotiations that led to a successful bill last year. While we were never opposed in principle to LPC licensure in California, we opposed earlier bills because they did not adequately distinguish the professions of counseling and MFT.
In short, the two professions each have unique histories, skill sets, and bodies of knowledge. MFTs come from a systemic orientation, and emerged from research on severe mental illness (schizophrenia, specifically). LPCs grew from career and school counseling, and work from a developmental perspective. Neither lens is better or worse than the other, and with the right training, both can do psychotherapy -- but we take different approaches to it, just like MFTs take a different approach from Psychologists.
Ultimately, we wound up with a bill in California that protects the distinctiveness of the professions, for which I am very happy.
As an aside, I would take issue with one particular point made by the rebutting person (rebutter?). Portability is as big of a problem with an LPC license as it is with an MFT -- in both cases, licensure is state-specific, and states have similar-but-different standards. In some states, it's easier to move as an MFT; in others, it's easier to move as an LPC. Any suggestion that the LPC is "more portable," or even that it is a "national license" as I've heard more than once, just isn't accurate.
I hope that's helpful -- let me know if I can answer any additional questions!
Dr. Caldwell,
I am curious as to why you seem to be such an apologist for AAMFT when as the "rebuter" indicated above that MFT is a very minor license category in all states except California.
Yes AAMFT initiated COAMFTE and in many states got the requirement to graduate from a COAMFTE program instated as a condition of licensure.
From my view AAMFT spent time developing programs like COAMFTE (whose members are shrinking by the way) instead of promoting the profession systemic therapies and thereby MFT licensees.
I was educated in CA and thought that recognition of the value of MFT was ubiquitous. I was surprised that I had to educate clients and pay sources about the value of systemic therapy and what systemic therapy does.
Frankly I was shocked that AAMFT had done so little to support the profession and the practice of MFT in comparison with what I had experienced in CA.
I joined AAMFT out of desperation with being in a new state and finding how little the public and other professions knew of MFT.
AAMFT seems to have continually and consistently positioned itself against other professions and input instead of for an effective treatment modalities.
I hope you will respond in the same thoughtful way you have responded to previous queries.
Sincerely, Dr. McNamara, LMFT (CA and CO)
@Mike - Thanks for your comments. There's some truth in what you're saying -- I too would like to see AAMFT focus greater energy on supporting and advancing the modality of MFT rather than the specific license. I also think that's the direction they're headed.
One thing that is vital to the profession thriving is recognition from federal programs, particularly Medicare. Even if you never plan to work with a Medicare client, it's a bellwether program; recognition there opens up a lot of additional opportunities at the federal level, and would likely mean greater recognition throughout the healthcare system. To make that happen, we had to get licensure in all 50 states. And at times, getting those state licensure laws has meant battling other professions. (Establishing a new license requires that you demonstrate that your profession is sufficiently different from those already licensed.)
Now that we're there, with licensure laws on the books in every state, MFTs are working hand-in-hand with LPCs (also now licensed in every state) to get us both into the Medicare system. And we have a good record of cooperation with APA, ACA, NASW and others when there was benefit to the field.
I would also call your attention to the strategic planning process going on at AAMFT now. One of the significant issues they have taken up is the question of whether to continue limiting Clinical Membership to only those licensed as MFTs. While it's just my opinion, I do hope they expand this outward; allowing Psychologists, counselors, and others who believe in and practice systemic work would go a long way toward developing a community around our shared philosophy and modality.
what is the difference between a MFT and a LPCC.
What will a LPCC not be able to do in terms of job duties as opposed to MFTs?
Will they be able to apply to therapist jobs?
I d like to know your response to "anonymous:.
Post a Comment