BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 632
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 12, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION
Mary Hayashi, Chair
SB 632 (Emmerson) - As Amended: June 6, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 38-0
SUBJECT : Marriage and family therapists.
SUMMARY : Clarifies which marriage and family therapist (MFT)
trainees are allowed to counsel clients outside of a practicum
course, and clarifies a limited exemption for trainees who are
not allowed to counsel clients outside of a practicum course.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that trainees who begin graduate study before August
1, 2012, and complete that study on or before December 31,
2018, may gain hours of experience and counsel clients outside
of the required practicum.
2)Specifies that the following trainees may gain hours of
experience outside of the required practicum but must be
enrolled in a practicum course to counsel clients:
a) Applicants for licensure or registration who begin
graduate study before August 1, 2012, and do not complete
that study on or before December 31, 2018;
b) Applicants for licensure or registration who begin
graduate study before August 1, 2012, and who graduate from
a degree program that meets additional educational
requirements, as specified; and,
c) Applicants for licensure or registration who begin
graduate study on or after August 1, 2012.
3)Specifies that the trainees identified in 2), above, may
counsel clients while not enrolled in a practicum course if
the period of lapsed enrollment is less than 90 calendar days,
and if that period is immediately preceded by enrollment in a
practicum course and immediately followed by enrollment in a
practicum course or completion of the degree program.
SB 632
Page 2
4)Makes an updating change by deleting an irrelevant
implementation date.
5)States legislative intent that trainees identified in 1),
above, shall be allowed to gain experience and counsel clients
as of January 1, 2012, and that this bill, in that respect, is
to operate retroactively.
6)Contains an urgency clause.
EXISTING LAW
1)Licenses and regulates the practice of MFTs by the Board of
Behavioral Sciences (BBS) within the Department of Consumer
Affairs.
2)Establishes education requirements for MFT licensure,
including a requirement for a practicum completed by an MFT
intern and trainee that involves certain types and hours of
experience, as specified.
3)Defines certain terms for purposes of the licensing law,
including:
a) "Intern" to mean an unlicensed person registered with
BBS who has earned a masters or doctors degree qualifying
for licensure; and,
b) "Trainee" to mean an unlicensed person currently
enrolled in a masters or doctors degree program, as
specified, that is designed to qualify the person for
licensure as an MFT.
4)Authorizes MFT interns and trainees to perform counseling
activities and services in certain work settings, provided
that the activities and services are part of the trainee's
supervised course of study.
5)Provides that MFT trainees may gain hours of experience
outside the required practicum but must be enrolled in a
practicum course to counsel clients.
6)Provides that trainees may counsel clients while not enrolled
in a practicum course if the period of lapsed enrollment is
less than 90 calendar days, and if that period is immediately
SB 632
Page 3
preceded and immediately followed by enrollment in a practicum
course.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS :
Purpose of this bill . According to the author, "SB 632 is a
clean-up measure to SB 363 (2011, Chapter 384). Currently,
under Section 4980.42 (c), all MFT trainees must be enrolled in
a practicum course to counsel clients beginning January 1, 2012,
unless the period of lapsed enrollment is less than 90 days, and
is immediately preceded and followed by enrollment in a
practicum course. However, the intent of SB 363 was to apply
this 90 day exemption period to the practicum requirement only
to those trainees subject to Section 4980.36, which specifically
refers to trainees who begin graduate study on or after August
1, 2012. Therefore, SB 632 will correct this oversight and only
apply this practicum requirement to trainees who begin graduate
study on or after August 1, 2012. This bill also contains a
provision to clarify that the change is retroactive back to
January 1, 2012, which is the date that SB 363 became effective
and imposed the practicum requirement with the 90 day exemption
period to all trainees."
Background . SB 33 (Correa), Chapter 26, Statutes of 2009,
established new curriculum and experience requirements for MFT
graduate students, which were intended to be implemented
beginning August 1, 2012, and repealed old requirements on
January 1, 2019. These new requirements applied as follows:
Applicants for licensure or registration who begin graduate
study before August 1, 2012, and do not complete that study on
or before December 31, 2018;
Applicants for licensure or registration who begin graduate
study before August 1, 2012, and who graduate from a degree
program that meets the additional educational requirements
established by SB 33; and,
Applicants for licensure or registration who begin graduate
study on or after August 1, 2012.
SB 33 specified that trainees subject to the bill's new
SB 632
Page 4
requirements must be enrolled in a practicum course to counsel
clients. MFT trainees who begin graduate study before August 1,
2012, and complete that study on or before December 31, 2018,
were "grandfathered" and allowed to gain hours of experience and
counsel clients outside of the practicum, which had been the
case prior to the changes enacted via SB 33.
After passage of SB 33, a number of schools voiced concern about
how the practicum course requirement would operate during
intersession and summer break, when students might not be able
to enroll in a practicum course. In addition, there were
concerns that trainees would not be able to gain the requisite
number of hours of direct client experience necessary for
licensure if they were not able to enroll in a practicum course.
As a result, the BBS sponsored SB 363 (Emmerson), Chapter 384,
Statutes of 2011, to allow a trainee to continue counseling
clients while not enrolled in a practicum if the lapse in
enrollment is less than 90 calendar days and is immediately
preceded and followed by enrollment in a practicum course.
According to the BBS, this bill is necessary to correct an
oversight in SB 363, which inadvertently applied the practicum
requirement and its exemption to all MFT trainees, even those
who were not originally intended to be subject to the new
requirement under SB 33. This bill corrects that oversight.
MFT trainees will continue to be supervised while counseling
clients during periods of lapsed enrollment in a practicum
course, according to the BBS.
This bill also clarifies that the period of lapsed enrollment
can be followed by enrollment in a practicum course, or by
completion of the degree program. This allows trainees at the
end of their graduate program to finish any outstanding hours of
experience after their practicum is over.
Support . The MFT Consortium of Orange County writes, "Beginning
around 2005, the BBS took steps to bring MFT education in line
with that existing for Social Workers, and proposed for the
incoming Licensed Professional Clinical Counselors, by focusing
on community mental health and requiring all MFT-prep programs
to become 60 units by Fall, 2012. In that big transition (SB
33), a number of smaller changes were made, including raising
MFT training requirements to include enrollment in a practicum
class whenever gaining experience hours. A gap of up to 90 days
SB 632
Page 5
was allowed under this plan, provided it was anchored by
practicum classes pre- and post-gap. When the law putting these
changes into effect was passed (SB 363, January 1, 2012) it
erroneously did not specify that the changes were intended to
sync with the entering class of Fall, 2012, when all the other
curriculum changes take effect.
"Having this requirement accidentally take effect early put the
schools who are still gearing up for the new 60-unit MFT
curriculum in a tough spot. As it stands today, these schools
are not yet ready to offer the year-round practicum classes
until August of 2012 (when SB 33 goes into effect), yet because
of SB 363 students in their programs now can't count hours as
trainees as of January 1, 2012, without those classes. Schools
would not have been obligated to offer these courses yet, and
had no notice that the timing for implementing this policy would
be changed. Courses can't be created instantly - there are
curriculum committees, Academic Senates, etc., to be negotiated,
which is why the start date for the new curriculum for MFTs
wasn't scheduled for implementation till the entering class of
Fall, 2012. Because of this error in SB 363, MFT students
entering before Fall, 2012, will all be affected by this
accidental start date of January 1, 2012, for requiring
year-round practicum - their program of study is effectively
being changed mid-course, something that legislation from the
BBS typically attempts to avoid.
"The trickle-down effect?is that current MFT students may not
graduate in a timely way, thus depriving Californians of access
to these (otherwise) well-qualified and well-trained clinicians.
The clients who were being seen by these student trainees may
also be left with no clinician - and therefore deprived of
services - since students who become unexpectedly unable to
count hours may not continue to complete them. And the
community agencies who had four-way agreements with these
students (and their universities, by definition) for their
training are also left without the services of the trainees
caught in this time-loop, which then negatively impacts the
agency's ability to serve their communities and constituents.
"Unfortunately, the letter from AFSCME does not accurately
represent these facts. It makes it sound like the MFT trainee
standards are being lowered by the proposed emergency
legislation (SB 632), when in fact the issue is simply the
timing of raising the standard. Our belief and recommendation
SB 632
Page 6
is that the requirement for MFT students to be in practicum
class in order to count experience hours simply needs to
coincide with the obligation of the universities to offer those
classes, as provided for in SB 33? The BBS clearly saw that the
standard of being in a practicum class while earning hours was
important (as AFSCME agrees) - that's why it was built into SB
33. The timing of its implementation just needs to be mended,
to match all the other improvements coming to MFT curriculum in
Fall, 2012."
Opposition . The American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, states, "This bill seems
to indicate that unlicensed MFTs would be permitted to counsel
clients while not being directly supervised for a period of
time. This unnecessarily increases the risk to the public as
both social workers and psychologists have stringent supervision
requirements for unlicensed providers in training. By reducing
the supervision requirements for MFT trainees, a client who is
being treated by an unlicensed and unsupervised therapist could
suffer lasting ill effects. These regulations are designed to
protect the public and ensure a safe learning environment for
the MFT student. Supervision requirements are in place for a
reason, and lessening these requirements would put the public at
risk of ill-qualified therapists. Client safety is paramount in
this profession, and AFSCME strives to ensure that clients are
well-served in receiving therapist counsel."
Previous legislation .
SB 363 (Emmerson), Chapter 384, Statutes of 2011. Authorizes,
among other things, MFT trainees to counsel clients while not
enrolled in a practicum if the period of lapsed enrollment is
less than 90 calendar days and is immediately preceded and
immediately followed by enrollment in a practicum course.
SB 33 (Correa), Chapter 26, Statutes of 2009. Updates and
recasts the educational curriculum requirements for MFTs to
require persons who begin graduate study after August 1, 2012,
to meet increased total unit requirements and increased
practicum hours for face-to-face counseling; integrates
specified elements, including public mental health practices,
throughout the curriculum; repeals existing MFT educational
requirements on January 1, 2019; revises requirements for
applicants licensed or educated outside of California; and,
makes technical and conforming changes.
SB 632
Page 7
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Board of Behavioral Sciences (sponsor)
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, California
Division
Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council
California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists
MFT Consortium of Orange County
Pacific Asian Counseling Services
Several individuals
Opposition
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
Analysis Prepared by : Angela Mapp / B.,P. & C.P. / (916)
319-3301