BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE HEALTH
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
Senator Elaine K. Alquist, Chair
BILL NO: SB 707
S
AUTHOR: DeSaulnier
B
AMENDED: April 22, 2009
HEARING DATE: April 29, 2009
7
CONSULTANT:
0
Dunstan/
7
SUBJECT
Alcohol and other drug counselor licensing and
certification
SUMMARY
Institutes a system of certification and licensing for
alcohol and other drug counselors by the Department of Drug
and Alcohol Programs (DADP).
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law:
Requires all adult alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or
treatment facilities to be licensed by the Department of
Drug and Alcohol Programs (DADP). Also requires
driving-under-the-influence programs and narcotic
replacement therapy programs to be licensed by DADP.
Grants DADP the sole authority in state government to
establish appropriate minimum qualifications, including
education, skills, life experience and training for
licensees, designated administrators and staff.
Requires DADP to operate a certification program for
treatment services, such as outpatient treatment services,
which are not subject to licensing. Such certification is
voluntary on the part of the facility, shall not convey any
approval or disapproval by the department, and shall be for
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 2
informational purposes only. DADP is also required to
develop standards for assuring minimum levels of quality
provided by alcohol and drug programs.
Requires all alcohol and drug abuse programs to register
with the county drug and alcohol program administrator in
order to coordinate efforts in the county. Provides that
registration does not constitute approval or endorsement by
the county or by DADP.
Establishes DADP as the lead state agency for alcohol and
drug programs and requires DADP to prepare a master plan to
eliminate drug and alcohol abuse in California. Requires
DADP to cooperate closely with individuals and
organizations concerned with alleviating problems related
to inappropriate alcohol and drug use. Requires DADP to
develop and maintain a data system that shall gather and
obtain information on the status of alcohol and other drug
abuse problems in the State of California.
Existing state regulations
Establish nine counselor organizations that are allowed to
certify alcohol and drug counselors who provide counseling
services in an alcohol or drug program, which is defined as
a program that is subject to state licensing, receives
state funding, or is granted voluntary certification.
Allow currently employed counselors five years, dating from
2005, to become certified. Require that certification be
based on specific addiction counseling competencies,
including understanding addiction, knowledge of treatment
methods, and professional readiness. Existing state
regulations require that, by 2010, at least 30 percent of
counselors in licensed facilities shall be in compliance
with certification requirements, and all other noncertified
counseling staff must be registered with a certifying
organization.
This bill:
General provisions
Establishes the Alcohol and Other Drug Counselor
Licensing and Certification Act.
Creates a three categories of certified counselors
beginning with a Certified Alcohol and Other Drug
Counselor, and including an advanced and clinical
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 3
supervisor certification, who would all be certified
by DADP to practice alcohol and drug counseling in a
program licensed or certified by DADP.
Establishes a Licensed Alcohol and Other Drug
Counselor (LAODC) who may maintain an independent
practice and can also provide clinical supervision
and.
Defines a registrant as a person registered with
DADP and is working towards certification or licensure
as a Certified Alcohol and Other Drug Counselor.
Certification and licensing
Requires DADP to develop standards for
certification and licensure of alcohol and other drug
counselors, including persons presently certified by
DADP and to begin issuing licenses, certificates and
registrations beginning January 1, 2011. .
Requires DADP, beginning January 1, 2011, to issue
Certified Alcohol and Other Drug Counselor
certificates to a person who either: 1) completes 350
hours of education and possesses a high school diploma
or GED, or 2) possessed an associates or equivalent
degree.
Provides that the applicant is also required to
pass a required test, complete 250 hours of supervised
experience, complete 2000 hours of work experience,
submit and pass a required criminal offender record
information search and pay a fee set by DADP.
Requires DADP to issue counseling certificates at
an advanced level and a clinical supervisor level to
persons who submit and pass a required criminal
offender record information search and pays the fee
set by DADP, and meets the requirements for of
education, supervised experience and work experience,
as specified.
Directs DADP to issue a license to a person who
meets specified requirements and possess a graduate
degree in a related field.
Requires that education required for the advanced
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 4
counseling certificate and the licensed counselor meet
the requirements of specified publications of the
United States Department of Health and Human Services,
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
and any other material specified by DADP.
Establishes specified requirements for exams
required for certification or licensure by DADP.
Specifies the requirements for experience used to
meet the supervised experience criteria for
certification.
Requires supervisors to comply with all
requirements for supervision as established by DADP by
regulation.
Establishes standards for supervised experience as
a requirement for certification and licensing.
Establishes that nothing in this bill shall be
construed to constrict, limit or withdraw the Medical
Practice Act, Nursing Practice Act, Psychology
Licensing Act, Marriage and Family Therapist Act or
Clinical Social Work Practice Act.
Provides specific exemptions from the bill's
requirements for the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, employees or
volunteers of the State of California, employees or
volunteers for an agency of the U.S. government and
volunteers of peer or self help groups, clerics and
live-in alternatives to incarceration.
Existing practitioners
Requires DADP to certify or license each person who
is certified by the department as a counselor on
December 31, 2010, and requires this certification or
licensing to be in effect for a period of two to four
years and shall be renewable.
Allows DADP to withdraw or condition a
certification or licensure for the same reasons that
it could take discipline against new registrations,
certificate or licenses.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 5
Grants DADP the authority to issue regulations to
specify which persons may be eligible to be registered
or certified and receive appropriate credit for
education supervised experience and work experience.
Provides for a person to qualify as an existing
practitioner, DADP must receive an application by
December 31, 2013.
Requires the applicant to have the appropriate
advance certification as recognized by DADP before
December 31, 2010 or meet the requirements for new
applicants, submit and pass a criminal background
check, pay the applicable fee set by DADP and complete
the certificate application.
Establishes that the clinical supervisor level must
meet additional work experience and continuing
education.
Requires that the licensed counselor must meet the
requirements for a certificate and must have the
appropriate advance certification as recognized by
DADP before December 31, 2010.
Scope of practice.
Establishes and defines the practice of alcohol and
drug counseling and makes it unlawful to engage in the
practice of alcohol and drug counseling without
holding a valid certificate or license.
Administration
Grants DADP authority to adopt rules and
regulations as necessary to administer the licensing
act.
Provides that licenses or certification shall
expire within two year after the issue date and
specifies renewal procedures.
Requires that a counselor display his or her
license or certification in a prominent place.
Allows a license to be placed on an inactive
status.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 6
Requires a person who is licensed, certified or
registered to provide written notice to DADP within 30
days of a name change or a change of address.
Requires DADP to establish continuing education
requirements, procedures for the filing and
investigation of complaints, criteria to determine if
curriculum meets the licensing act's requirements,
parameters of unprofessional conduct, develop
examinations, registration and supervision
requirements for registrants and a database of
certified and licensed counselors and registrants.
Requires DADP to establish registration and
supervision requirements for registrants, including
those persons presently registered.
Requires DADP to develop or adopt examination for
administering to prospective licensees.
Funding
Establishes the Alcohol and Other Drug Counselor
License Fund in the State Treasury.
Requires that all fees collected under this act
shall be deposited in the fund and are available for
appropriation by the Legislature.
Provides the fee for issuing a license or
certification shall be $155 for both a new license and
renewal.
Specifies fees for application, renewals, written
and oral examinations, license issuance, rescoring an
examination, delinquency for renewal, replacement
licenses and others.
Enforcement
Authorizes DADP to take disciplinary actions,
including reprimands or probation or suspending or
revoking the license or certification.
Allows DADP to issue administrative citations or
impose administrative fines not to exceed $5,000.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 7
Makes it a misdemeanor to falsely represent that
the person has a certification or license from DADP.
Authorizes DADP to deny, revoke, suspend or impose
conditions upon a license, certification or
registration for unprofessional conduct.
Establishes that activities that constitutes
unprofessional conduct, among them securing a license
or certificate by fraud or deceit, administering
controlled substances, and gross negligence or
incompetence in practicing alcohol or drug counseling.
Requires DADP to revoke any license, certification
or registration upon a finding of fact that the
counselor or registrant engaged in any act of sexual
contact with a client or former client, as specified.
Authorizes DADP to deny, revoke or suspend a
license, certification or registration, because of a
disciplinary action by another state or territory on a
license or certificate for alcohol and other drug
counseling.
Allows DADP to temporarily suspend a license,
certification or registration when the action is
necessary to protect a client from physical or mental
abuse, abandonment or other substantial threat to
health and safety.
Establishes procedures for applicants use to appeal
decisions made by DADP.
Requires that accusations against people who are
licensed, certified or registered shall be filed
within three years from the date DADP discover the
alleged act or omission that is the basis for
disciplinary action, with longer periods for fraud or
misrepresentation, sexual misconduct or if a minor is
involved.
Requires that an applicant for a license,
certification or registration consent to a criminal
background check and establishes related procedures as
specified.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 8
Requires DADP to revoke or deny a license,
certification or registration if an applicant:
a. Has been convicted of five or more
criminal offense within a thirty-month period
ending two years or less prior to the date of
DADP's determination
b. Is required to register as a sex offender
c. Has been convicted of a violent felony
within three years prior to the date of the
department's determination.
Adds certified and licensed alcohol and drug
counselors to the list of mandated reporters for child
and elder abuse and neglect.
FISCAL IMPACT
Unknown.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
According to the author, there is no single standard for
the educational curriculum, testing, certification or code
of conduct for alcohol and other drug counselors providing
direct treatment services to clients in state licensed and
certified treatment programs. Currently DADP authorizes
nine different certifying organizations to certify
counselors. Each program develops its own classroom
curriculum, training, supervisor and work experience
requirements. Background checks are not performed and
there is no central repository of counselor information,
including disciplinary action taken to suspend or revoke
certification for misconduct. DADP can direct a certifying
organization to take action against a counselor for
misconduct, but there is nothing to prevent a counselor who
has had certification suspended or revoked from obtaining
certification from another organization. SB 707 authorizes
DADP to register, certify and license alcoholism and other
drug counselors in California and to charge fees to
activities associated with counselor registration,
certification and licensure. The bill creates a tiered
system for counselor certification and licensure with
specific education, supervision, training and experience
criteria for each tier. The bill also requires DADP to
impose sanctions for counselor misconduct.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 9
Background
Alcohol and other drug dependency is a treatable condition,
but no one treatment modality is successful with all
persons who exhibit chemical dependency problems. Due to
the fact that individual problems, needs and resources vary
greatly, a variety of treatment strategies must be
available. Treatments for chemical dependency vary because
there are multiple perspectives about the condition,
itself.
Most treatments focus on helping people discontinue their
alcohol or other drug intake, followed by life training
and/or social support in order to help them resist a return
to substance use. Since chemical dependency involves
multiple factors which encourage a person to continue
using, they must all be addressed in order to successfully
prevent a relapse. An example of this kind of treatment is
detoxification, followed by a combination of supportive
therapy, attendance at self-help groups, and ongoing
development of coping mechanisms.
Besides being effective, treatment is widely considered to
save money by combating the problems associated with
substance abuse. A benefit cost analysis done in
conjunction with the evaluation of the Substance Abuse and
Crime Prevention Act of 2000, which was Proposition 36 on
the ballot, found that, for every $1 invested in substance
abuse treatment, state and local governments have saved
$2.50 from reduced health care costs and crime. Other
studies have found that the per capita cost of treatment is
significantly less than the cost of incarceration.
According to the Institute of Medicine, the cost of
incarceration is about $40,000 per year compared to $12,500
and $3,100 for residential and outpatient treatments,
respectively. Despite the cost effectiveness of substance
abuse treatment programs, a substantial gap exists between
the number of people who need treatment and the number who
receive treatment.
The number of people seeking treatment who have
co-occurring mental health disorders has steadily increased
in recent years, although it is not clear if the reason is
improved diagnosis of mental disorders or a change in the
population. It is estimated that individuals with
co-occurring disorders now comprise 20 to 50 percent of
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 10
those with addiction problems. DADP has noted that, if
counselors were better qualified, they would be better
prepared to accurately identify these co-occurring
disorders earlier, treat the addiction and make appropriate
referrals to treat the co-occurring mental health disorder.
Alcohol and drug counseling
Alcohol and other drug counselors work very closely with
program participants, patients and residents, and provide
critical services including assessments, counseling,
treatment planning and case management. Counselors are not
currently required to be certified or to have a minimum
amount of education or experience. Most treatment programs
use or employ a mixture of counselors, who have some formal
education or personal experience with alcoholism, drug
addiction, and recovery.
DADP adopted counselor certification regulations in April
2005, but they apply only to individuals providing
counseling services in an alcohol and other drug program
licensed or certified by DADP. To be certified by DADP,
individuals must be certified by one of the organizations
identified in the DADP regulations. In order for a
certifying organization to issue alcohol or other drug
program counselor certification, the organization's
certification requirements must meet DADP's minimum
standards. These standards include completing at least 155
hours of formal classroom education, as defined, at least
160 documented hours of supervised alcohol or other drug
program counseling, 2,080 or more documented hours of work
experience, and obtaining a score of at least 70 percent on
an exam approved by the certifying organization.
Many other licensed professionals provide alcoholism and
drug abuse counseling either in a medical setting or in
private practice. These include MFTs and LCSWs, who are
licensed by the Board of Behavior Sciences; psychologists,
who are licensed by the Board of Psychology; and,
physicians and surgeons, including psychiatrists, who are
licensed and regulated by the Medical Board of California.
Informational hearing
The Assembly Business and Professions Committee reviewed
the issue of licensure of alcoholism and drug abuse
counselors at an informational hearing held on October 30,
2007. Testimony was provided by stakeholders, including
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 11
the California Association of Alcoholism & Drug Abuse
Counselors, DADP, the Board of Behavioral Sciences, the
Justin Foundation, the American Psychological Association,
the California Association of Marriage and Family
Therapists, and the California Association for Alcohol/Drug
Educators. In addition to industry stakeholders and
regulatory agencies, a number of community members
testified before the committee.
Little Hoover Commission Report
A March 2008 report by the Little Hoover Commission titled,
Addressing Addiction: Improving & Integrating California's
Substance Abuse Treatment System, describes the effects of
substance abuse on families, neighborhoods and government
coffers and recommends ways to reduce the misery and cost
of substance abuse by addressing addiction as a distinct
problem in many state-funded programs. In the report, the
Commission called for a new treatment system model that
emphasizes screening for signs of alcohol and drug abuse
and early intervention strategies, employs evidence-based
strategies to treat addiction, links state funding with
improved outcomes, standardizes counselor certification and
creates multiple levels of certification, and improves the
Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, or Proposition
36, by increasing the use of proven practices such as drug
court models.
Previous legislation
AB 239 (DeSaulnier) of 2008 would have enacted the
Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors Licensing Law and
would have provided for the licensing and regulation of
alcohol and drug counselors by the Board of Behavioral
Sciences (BBS). The bill would have created two categories
of licensed alcoholism and drug abuse counselors, a
"licensed alcoholism and drug abuse counselor I,", who
would be a person licensed to practice alcoholism and drug
abuse counseling under clinical supervision, and a
"licensed alcoholism and drug abuse counselor II," who
would be a person licensed to conduct an independent
practice of alcoholism and drug abuse counseling, and to
provide supervision to other counselors. The bill did not
address counselors working in licensed and certified
facilities, they would have remained under the jurisdiction
of DADP and subject to the existing certification process.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 12
This bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. In
his veto message, he stated that he was directing DADP to
work to craft a uniform standard for all alcohol and drug
counselors whether in private practice or in facilities.
AB 1367 (DeSaulnier) of 2007 would have provided for the
licensing or registration and regulation of Alcoholism and
Drug Abuse Counselors, as defined, by the Board of
Behavioral Sciences. This bill was held in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee on the suspense file in January
2008.
AB 2571 (Longville) of 2004 would have created the Board of
Alcohol and Other Drugs of Abuse Professionals in the
Department of Consumer Affairs and established requirements
for licensure of alcohol and other drugs of abuse
counselors. This bill failed passage in the Assembly
Health Committee.
AB 1100 (Longville) of 2003 would have enacted the Alcohol
and Drug Abuse Counselors Licensing Law, to be administered
by the Board of Behavioral Sciences. This bill died in the
Assembly Business and Professions Committee.
SB 1716 (Vasconcellos) of 2002 would have enacted the
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors Licensing Law requiring
the Board of Behavioral Sciences to license and regulate
alcohol and drug abuse counselors. This bill was held in
the Assembly Business & Professions Committee.
SB 537 (Vasconcellos) of 2001 would have required the DCA
to initiate a review of the need for licensing substance
abuse counselors. This bill was vetoed by Governor Gray
Davis who cited as his reason the impact on the general
fund. In his veto message, Governor Davis directed DADP to
require counselors in drug and alcohol treatment facilities
to be certified for quality assurance purposes.
AB 79 (Tucker) of 1993 would have required the Department
of Consumer Affairs (DCA), to approve private organizations
which certify persons working in alcohol or other drug
abuse prevention, recovery or treatment programs. This
bill was held in the Assembly Health Committee.
Arguments in support
The bill's sponsor, the Department of Alcohol and Drug
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 13
Programs, argues that this is a necessary measure to better
serve the treatment community and, consequently, the entire
state. They state that the bill provides for workforce
development and career ladders by establishing uniform
qualification and criteria for tiered levels of alcoholism
and drug counselors. In addition, they note that the bill
would help them protect the public by instituting criminal
background checks.
The County Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators
Association of California supports the bill as an important
step toward professionalizing and improving the field of
addiction treatment. They argue that the provisions of SB
707 will raise the bar and advance the profession of
alcoholism and drug treatment, protect consumers and bring
all of the functions under a single state agency. Most
important, the bill provides a career path for all
alcoholism and drug counselors and address many of the
problems in the deeply-flawed system of counselor
credentialing that is currently in place.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, Local 260 argue that this bill will provide
higher standards for the valuable work of drug and alcohol
counseling. There is a huge need for additional
specialists such as drug and alcohol counselors, especially
in prisons as well as the community. They would like to
see amendments that strengthen the skills for supervising
to include education and training on leadership and
management.
Arguments in opposition
Opponents are concerned that the passage of the current
version of the bill could lead to dramatic shortages of
skilled labor that is necessary for treatment programs.
Opponents are concerned about the specifics of the criminal
background check. They note that there are many excellent
counselors with a criminal background, reflecting a
counselor's own history with substance abuse, a history
that can be very important for an alcohol and drug
counselor. They argue that if treatment leads to
rehabilitation and changes lives, the state policy should
not be to eliminate qualified people through a background
check and they point to how the Board of Behavioral
Sciences runs their background checks.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 14
Opponents are also concerned that those with a dual
diagnosis of mental illness and substance abuse issues will
not receive adequate care and won't be referred for
assessment, diagnosis and treatment.
The California Association of Addiction Recovery Resources
questions the need for the bill. They state that the
existing counselor certification program, which has been
fully operational for a mere 18 months and was 10 years in
the making is being set aside. They argue that the current
regulations are very comprehensive and that the issues that
exist could be resolved easily. They state that they have
spent more than $250,000 to develop a curriculum to certify
counselors as required by the regulations. They are
particularly concerned about the impact on the workforce,
in that new counselors will be hard to recruit for the
foreseeable future. They point out that it is a field with
high turnover and many new counselors are required each
year. The high cost to comply with the new requirements
will be a significant deterrent to new qualified people
choosing this profession. They point out that between all
of the fees that DADP will charge plus the cost of the
background check, someone entering the field will face a
$1,000 bill, in a field with traditionally low wages. They
also argue that the process for disciplining counselors
will take up to two years, since the bill uses the Board of
Behavioral Sciences model, and that is unacceptably long.
California Therapeutic Communities argue that many
currently in the field have been working for years without
meeting the education requirement in the bill as their life
experience is an important aspect in their counseling
qualifications. They are also concerned that there are too
many levels of counselors within the bill, and that the
supervising level should be merged with the advanced level.
They also argue the treatment facility needs flexibility
to determine who meets the qualifications for supervisor.
They also argue that additional specific subject matter
education be required.
The California Psychological Association expresses concerns
that a number of issues are not resolved in the legislation
but are left to the regulatory process. They are also
concerned about making a department the licensing authority
for independent practitioners, as compared to the Board of
Behavioral Sciences, which oversees clinical psychologists,
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 15
marriage and family therapists and licensed clinical social
workers. They also argue that the scope of practice needs
to be tightened to ensure that activities are done in the
context of an integrated model, capable of treating dually
diagnosed individuals that also have a serious mental
illness. They also argue that the requirement that was in
AB 239 for the referral for screening for mental illness be
included.
The California Association of Marriage and Family
Therapists opposes the bill because of its ambiguity in
numerous sections. They are also concerned that the large
number of regulations required for the program to begin by
January 1, 2011, may mean that important elements are not
enforced or adequately completed. They also argue that the
scope of practice is defined by the mere listing of
services as opposed to defining principals that clarify the
practice of the profession. They are also concerned that
the bill may limit the practice of other mental health
professionals to treat problems of substance abuse.
The California Association of Alcohol/Drug Educators
opposes the bill because it should require that more of the
education should be in a face-to-face setting rather than
through distance education. They point out that many
aspiring counselors are in the early stages of recovery and
have not yet developed the social skills necessary to
become effective, humane and ethical counselors. They also
object to the exemption for prisons, which they argue is
inappropriate because all people with the disease of
addiction deserve quality treatment from certified
counselors. They also believe that the education
requirements should be altered so that there is a minimum
alcohol and drug education component of the overall
education requirements. They also argue that the scope of
practice language should be amended to reflect a different
scope of each of the four levels.
The California Psychiatric Association argues that the
educational requirements are inadequate and that there
needs to be more education on mental illness. They also
believe that behavioral disciplines require coherent
regulation and that DADP does not have the experience or
mission to regulate such a profession and that it belongs
in the Department of Consumer Affairs.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 16
The San Francisco Women's Rehabilitation Foundation opposes
the bill because the bill threatens treatment programs that
use the social model. These programs used peer counselors
and often on a part time basis whereas the bill
contemplates full time counselors serving in a clinical
setting or a residential treatment program.
The committee received many e-mails from individuals
opposing the bill. In general, their concerns were that
the bill, as they understood it, put too much emphasis on
education and not enough on experience. In addition, many
expressed concerns about the background check and the level
of the fees to become certified.
COMMENTS
1. Many details of the program will be determined
administratively through the adoption of regulations. This
bill is a structure for a licensing and certification
program for drug and alcohol counselors with many of the
details to be to established or changed by regulation.
Areas needing regulations include the specifics of
licensure and certification requirements for those
currently certified or practicing, educational requirements
for all applicants, the amount of fees, the specific
process for registrants to register, the content of
continuing education, specifics as to what constitutes
supervised work experience, additional detail on the
definition of the practice of alcohol and drug counseling,
and the processes for appeals and background checks. With
the majority of the bill's provisions taking effect January
1, 2011, the timetable seems overly optimistic. The
committee should hear from the DADP, the bill's sponsor, as
to why they think they can implement this complex bill
within the time frame allowed in the bill.
2. The timeframe for implementation could have deleterious
effects on the supply of counselors. The majority of the
bill's provisions would take effect on January 1, 2011,
including significantly new requirements for certification.
Those applicants who are not already certified have to
meet significantly different new standards, which would
take applicants some time to meet. Opponents have
characterized the field as having a high turnover. If this
is true, it seems unlikely that a new supply of counselors
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 17
will be available to meet the demand when the bill's
provisions take effect. The bill does have grandfathering
provisions which could help keep people in the field, but
will not help with new entrants. A suggested amendment
would be to delay the date of implementation from January
1, 2011 to January 1, 2012, which would also give DADP
additional time to complete the necessary regulations.
3. The scope of practice is a list of services. Under
this bill, the scope of practice is the same for all levels
of certified and licensed counselors. The bill currently
establishes four levels of counselors with very different
qualifications, but the types of work that each level
should be doing is not defined save that licensed
counselors can be in private practice and supervisors will
supervise. This is an important area that the department
will have to develop by regulation.
4. Further significant amendments may occur. This bill
may be significantly amended to reflect the results of
ongoing negotiations. The committee may wish to ask the
author to bring the bill back to be heard again if the bill
changes significantly.
POSITIONS
Support: Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
(sponsor)
The American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, Local 260 (if amended)
California Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
Counselors
(if amended)
California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program
Executives
County Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators
Association of California
Drug Policy Alliance Network
Oppose: A. K. Bean Foundation
California Association of Addiction Recovery
Resources
California Association for Alcohol/Drug Educators
(unless amended)
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 707 (DeSaulnier) Page 18
California Association of Marriage and Family
Therapists (unless amended)
California Psychological Association
California Psychiatric Association
California Therapeutic Communities
Northeast Valley Hospital Association
San Francisco Women's Rehabilitation Foundation
Numerous individuals
-- END --