BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 570
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 24, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Richard Pan, Chair
SB 570 (DeSaulnier) - As Amended: June 17, 2014
SENATE VOTE : Not relevant.
SUBJECT : Advanced Alcohol and Drug Licensing Act.
SUMMARY : Establishes a licensing and certification system for
alcohol and drug abuse counselors to be administered by the
Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). Specifically, this
bill :
1)Establishes the Advanced Alcohol and Drug Counselor Licensing
Board (Board) within DHCS. Provides that the Board consist of
11 members with nine members appointed by the Governor and one
each by the Senate Rules Committee and the Speaker of the
Assembly.
2)Prescribes various requirements for the composition and terms
of the Board's membership.
3)Defines an advanced alcohol and drug counselor intern (AADCI)
as an unlicensed person who has fulfilled the testing and
education requirements to become licensed, but has yet to meet
the supervised experience requirements, as specified, and is
registered with the Board.
4)Defines a licensed advanced alcohol and drug counselor (LAADC)
as a person licensed to practice alcohol and drug counseling,
pursuant to specified provisions. Allows LAADCs to provide
clinical supervision to AADCIs.
5)Assigns numerous duties to the Board including:
a) Adopt rules and regulations, in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act , as necessary to administer
and enforce the Board;
b) Issue licenses and certificates to persons who meet the
qualifications of this bill and subsequent regulations
beginning on January 1, 2017, as specified;
SB 570
Page 2
c) Take disciplinary action against LAADCs or AADCIs,
including reprimand or probation, suspension, or revocation
of the license or registration, issuance of administrative
citations, or impositions of administrative fines not to
exceed $5,000;
d) Maintain a public database of registrants and certified
LAADCs, including their status, any public record of
discipline, and other information as the Board requires;
e) Establish an advisory committee, that sunsets two years
after the issuance of licenses, that must meet at least two
times per year and make recommendations to the Board
concerning curriculum, criminal background checks,
unprofessional conduct, and other matters referred to the
committee by the Board; and,
f) Other duties as specified.
6)Requires the Board, commencing January 1, 2017, to register
AADCI applicants who meet the following requirements:
a) Possesses an earned Master of Arts, Master of Science,
or Doctorate degree in alcohol and drug counseling,
psychology, social work, counseling, marriage and family
therapy, counseling psychology, clinical psychology, or
other clinically focused major or an equivalent degree
recognized by the Board, as specified. Allows the Board to
accept any or all of the hours of education as part of the
education leading to an applicant's earned Master of Arts,
Master of Science, or Doctorate degree;
b) Completes 315 clock hours of alcohol and drug-specific
education approved by the Board, as specified;
c) Completes a supervised practicum of no less than 315
performance (experience) hours, including a 45-hour
practicum, as well as 255 hours of practical experience
performed at an agency approved by the practicum
instructor;
d) Receives a passing score on the exam for licensure
designated by the Board;
e) Submits to a state and federal level criminal offender
record information search and passes both background
SB 570
Page 3
checks, as specified;
f) Pays the required fees as set by the Board; and,
g) Completes the application for registration.
7)Requires the Board, beginning January 1, 2017, and ceasing
with the disposition of all completed applications actually
received by the Board by June 30, 2018, to issue an LAADC
license to each applicant the Board determines meets all of
the requirements in 6) above and meets either of the
requirements in a) or b) below:
a) A certified alcohol and drug counselor who meets all of
the following requirements on or before January 1, 2017:
i) Holds a current, valid, advanced alcohol and drug
counseling certification or clinical supervision
certification issued by a certifying organization
recognized by DHCS, and completes, at a minimum, all of
the following:
(1) Completes 315 hours of specified formal
instruction, as specified;
(2) Completes 6,000 hours of work experience;
(3) Receives a passing score on a test to qualify
for certification, and completion of specified
education has been completed;
(4) Submits to a state and federal level criminal
offender record information search and passes both
background checks, as specified; and,
(5) Provides documentation of a total of 10,000
hours of experience in alcohol and drug abuse
counseling: allows documentation of: an associate
arts degree to count for 2,000 experience hours; a
bachelor's degree to count for 4,000 experience hours;
a master's degree to count for 6,000 hours of
experience; and, requires any degree used in lieu of
experience hours to be substantially related to
alcohol and drug counseling.
SB 570
Page 4
ii) Pays the required fees as set by the Board; and,
iii) Completes the application for a license; or,
b) A person licensed in the State of California who
practices alcohol and drug counseling who meets all of the
following requirements on or before January 1, 2017:
i) Provides documentation to the Board that he or she
currently holds a valid license in the state to practice
marriage family therapy, psychology, social work,
professional counseling, or medicine;
ii) Provides documentation to the Board of 6,000 hours
of experience in providing alcohol and drug counseling
services directly to patients;
iii) Pays the required fees as set by the Board; and,
iv) Completes the application for a license.
8)Permits education and work experience gained outside of
California to be accepted towards LAADC license requirements
if it is substantially equivalent to the requirements of this
bill.
9)Establishes and defines the scope of practice for AADCIs and
LAADCs and, commencing January 1, 2017, makes it unlawful to
engage in the practice of alcohol and drug counseling without
holding a valid certificate or license.
10)Specifies that nothing in this bill should be construed to
construct, limit, or withdraw other healing arts professional
scopes of practice, as specified.
11)Specifies that the provisions of this bill do not apply to
employees of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, an employee or volunteer of the State of
California, an employee or volunteer of an agency of the
government of the United States, volunteers of peer or
self-help groups, or clerics or other religious leaders.
12)Establishes title protections for AADCIs and LAADCs, as
specified.
SB 570
Page 5
13)Provides that licenses or registration expire within two
years after the issue date and specifies renewal procedures.
14)Requires an LAADC to display his or her license or
registration in a prominent place.
15)Allows a license to be placed on inactive status.
16)Requires an AADCI or LAADC to provide written notice to the
Board within 30 days of a name change or a change of address.
17)Authorizes the Board to deny, revoke, suspend, or impose
conditions upon a license or registration for unprofessional
conduct, as defined, and provides a process for AADCIs and
LAADCs to appeal adverse decisions of the Board.
18)Establishes the Advanced Alcohol and Drug Counselors License
Fund (Fund) in the State Treasury.
19)Requires all fees collected under this bill to be deposited
in the Fund and be available for appropriation by the
Legislature.
20)Directs the Board to establish fees to be paid by persons
seeking licensing as an LAADC or registration as an AADCI, and
requires that the total fees collected not to exceed the
reasonable cost to the Board for administering and
implementing this bill.
EXISTING LAW
1)Establishes the Medi-Cal program, administered by DHCS, under
which qualified low-income individuals receive health care
services.
2)Establishes the Drug Medi-Cal (DMC) program, which provides
substance use disorder services to Medi-Cal recipients.
3)Allows DHCS to enter into contracts with counties for the
provision of DMC services. If a county declines to contract
with DHCS, existing law requires DHCS to contract for services
in the county to ensure beneficiary access.
4)Requires each county to fund the nonfederal share for DMC
services through realignment funds, as specified.
SB 570
Page 6
5)Requires providers of DMC services to obtain certification
from DHCS to provide those services.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill, as amended, has not been analyzed by
a fiscal committee.
COMMENTS :
1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL . According to the author, California's
system of overseeing those who provide drug and alcohol
treatment is delegated to seven private certifying
organizations, accredited by a national organization.
Currently, Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Counselors must
either register with or become certified by one of these
organizations. However, each organization has differing
requirements for certification and existing law does not
require a criminal background check as part of their minimum
standards. There is currently no statutory authority for DHCS
to impose quality or consumer protection measures for AOD
counselors working outside of licensed and certified
facilities, putting consumers at risk. This bill establishes
state certification and licensure for AOD counselor's
administered by the DHCS. The author further states that This
bill provides a comprehensive certification requirements for
counselors, including education, supervised work requirements,
specific and comprehensive counselor testing criteria to meet
federal "best-evidence" standards, "grandparenting" the
existing workforce, and a "career ladder" (including a
licensed counselor level) that will help counselors and AOD
treatment programs. This bill includes criminal background
checks necessary to evaluate criminal histories to make sure
that we protect all vulnerable individuals who seek services
from AOD counselors.
2)BACKGROUND . AOD 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 AOD
intake, followed by life training and/or social support in
SB 570
Page 7
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.
About 36,000 registered or certified counselors work in 2,534
private and publicly funded drug and alcohol programs, ranging
from luxury residential rehabs to DUI and outpatient programs.
This workforce is key to the successful treatment of AOD
addicts. Demand for their services will grow as people newly
insured under the federal Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act seek help for substance dependence.
Currently DHCS authorizes 10 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. DHCS 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. This bill authorizes DHCS to register, certify,
and license AOD counselors in California and to charge fees to
do so. This bill creates a tiered system for counselor
certification and licensure with specific education,
supervision, training, and experience criteria for each tier.
This bill also requires DHCS to impose sanctions for counselor
misconduct.
a) Potential Cost Savings. 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
Proposition 36: Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of
2000, 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
SB 570
Page 8
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% of those
with addiction problems. DHCS 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.
b) CSOOO Report. A 2013 report by the California Senate
Office of Oversight and Outcomes (CSOOO) extensively
examined the current process to become an AOD counselor,
and noted some of the systemic flaws. California is one of
only two states among the nation's 15 largest that makes no
attempt to review counselors' criminal backgrounds. Even
within California, AOD counselors are the only
health-related profession not required to undergo these
checks. Among those who submit to screening are
acupuncturists, dental hygienists, optometrists, and
veterinarians.
The ability to easily evade regulators represents a gaping
loophole in California's system. While the state's seven
certifying organizations are required to check with their
counterparts to see if a counselor has ever been revoked,
the regulation states that this must be done only upon
certification. Counselors can work for five years before
they must become certified.
In 2004, Governor Gray Davis directed the California
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (DADP) to come up
with regulations for certifying counselors. As the
regulations were being considered, treatment programs and
organizations that certify counselors warned against strict
standards that would prevent too many people from becoming
SB 570
Page 9
counselors, a problem they said had been encountered by
other states that set the bar too high. The regulations
went into effect on April 1, 2005.
The CSOOO cross-checked lists of counselor names against
individuals who have been excluded from receiving Medicare
and Medi-Cal payments because of misconduct including fraud
or other criminal activity. CSOOO found several counselors
who were able to keep working despite having their
registrations or certifications revoked; they simply signed
up with a different certifying organization. The
organizations are supposed to check with their counterparts
to make sure that an applicant has not been ordered revoked
by DHCS. However, the regulation states that the check
must be done only when the organization certifies
counselors, not when they register, providing for a
regulatory loophole. Regulations allow counselors to work
for five years without being certified, meaning that a
revoked counselor could go that long without being
detected. After five years, that same counselor might be
able to register with another of the certifying
organizations and keep working. A current regulation
requires the seven certifying organizations to check with
one another to see if applicants' registrations or
certifications were ever revoked - but only when they seek
certification, not when they register.
DADP regulations approved in 2005 imposed the five-year
limit. Individuals can work as counselors with no
education or training by registering with one of the
certifying organizations. But the state wanted to assure
that inexperienced counselors were working towards the
standards required for certification. Five years was seen
as a reasonable interval for registrants to meet the
requirements. Counselors who failed to achieve
certification within five years would be revoked, unless
the certifying organization granted a two-year hardship
extension. The regulation also required that 30% of a
program's counseling staff be certified.
c) CSOOO Recommendations. The CSOOO Report concluded with
recommendations to improve California's system for
credentialing counselors including the following:
i) Because many shortcomings of the current system
SB 570
Page 10
stem from the complications of seven private
organizations sharing oversight with the State, the
Legislature should once again consider putting the
state firmly in charge of licensing and/or certifying
counselors. This change could be phased in over
several years to allow certifying organizations to
shift to an emphasis on education and training;
ii) Alternatively, the state agency that oversees
counselors should promulgate a regulation authorizing
and requiring certifying organizations to perform
criminal background checks. In this case, the state
could still establish guidelines for assessing criminal
histories, and could set up an advisory panel of
experts from within the treatment industry to evaluate
and make recommendations on individual cases;
iii) If the state does not institute
fingerprint-based criminal background checks with
subsequent arrest notifications, it should promulgate a
regulation requiring registered and certified
counselors to notify their certifying organizations
within a certain time frame if they have been arrested.
The regulation should also specify sanctions for
counselors who failed to comply;
iv) The state department that oversees counselors
should amend current regulations to require certifying
organizations to check with their counterparts, upon
registration rather than certification, to see if a
counselor has ever been revoked;
v) If the state does not take over counselor
credentialing, it should develop a regulation
specifying the methods certifying organizations should
use to cross-check applicants. The regulation should
require certifying organizations to share identifiers
other than names, such as driver's license numbers,
dates of birth, or Social Security numbers. The
regulation should clarify that certifying organizations
are required to check with each other to see if a
registrant has already reached the five-year limit for
working without certification with another
organization;
SB 570
Page 11
vi) The state department that oversees counselors
should clarify through regulation its authority to
sanction certifying organizations for failing to
adequately vet those they register and certify.
vii) The Senate may want to consider legislation to
extend the jurisdiction of the department that oversees
counselors to those who are not working in programs
licensed or certified by the department.
viii) The department that oversees counselors should
consider a change in regulations to make exceptions to
the requirement to become certified in five years for
those who have left the field for a time.
d) Current Regulations. California Code of Regulations,
Title 9, Division 4, Chapter 8, governs the current
certification of AOD counselors. They delegate the
certification of counselors to 10 private organizations,
which must be accredited by a national organization. (The
number of certifying organizations has since decreased to
seven.)
------------------------------------------------------------
|Organizations that register and certify counselors must be |
|accredited by a national organization. Currently, there |
|are seven. |
------------------------------------------------------------
|------------------------------------------------+-----------|
| Name | Location |
|------------------------------------------------+-----------|
|Addiction Counselor Certification Board of | Lakewood |
|California | |
|------------------------------------------------+-----------|
|American Academy of Health Care Providers in | Solano |
|the Addictive Disorders | Beach |
|------------------------------------------------+-----------|
|Board of Certification of Addiction Specialists |Sacramento |
|(affiliated with California Association of | |
|Addiction Recovery Resources) | |
|------------------------------------------------+-----------|
|Breining Institute |Sacramento |
|------------------------------------------------+-----------|
|California Association of Drinking Driver |Sacramento |
|Treatment Programs | |
|------------------------------------------------+-----------|
SB 570
Page 12
|California Certification Board of Alcohol and |Sacramento |
|Drug Counselors | |
|------------------------------------------------+-----------|
|Indian Alcoholism Commission of California, |Redding |
|Inc. | |
------------------------------------------------------------
Regulations require all counselors either to register with or
become certified by one of the organizations. Those who
register must get certified within five years. They set
minimum standards for certification, including a score of at
least 70% on a test, work experience, and formal classroom
education on drug and alcohol counseling. One provision
requires that five years after the regulations went into
effect - 2010 - treatment programs would have to assure that
30% of their treatment staffs were certified.
The regulations include a code of conduct that makes DHCS
responsible for investigating complaints against counselors.
Within 90 days of receiving a complaint, DHCS is required to
send a written order to a counselor's certifying organization
specifying what corrective action, if any, must be taken.
Before certifying a counselor, the private organizations are
required to check with their counterparts to determine if a
counselor has ever been revoked.
3)SUPPORT . The California Association of Alcoholism and Drug
Abuse Counselors (CAADAC) states that creating a license
category for this profession raises the level of care provided
to addicts seeking treatment in both the public and the
private sectors. Creating a licensed category allows
California to take advantage of federal health care reform
provisions, thus encouraging private sector treatment where
the progression of the disease may be treated before costly,
in-patent, publicly financed treatment becomes necessary.
CAADAC writes that alcohol and drug treatment providers have a
narrowly defined scope of practice. They are single-diagnoses
treatment providers that treat a disease, not a behavior, and
should not be considered behavioral health practitioners.
CAADAC believes that it would be most beneficial to place the
regulation of the profession in a system that is separate from
that of licensed behaviorists, and therefore DHCS is an
appropriate place for these licensing provisions. CAADAC
writes that this bill will put an end to professionals who are
banned from working in state licensed facilities for harming
SB 570
Page 13
clients or who may have had a license revoked by one of
California's licensing boards for sexually abusing patients
who turn to work under the guise of AOD counseling. Consumers
have no mechanism for distinguishing legitimate counselors
from those who have previously abused clients and have no
recourse should they become victims of unscrupulous providers
of addiction treatment services.
The California State Sheriff's Association states that the
creation of a professional licensing board which is dedicated
to insuring quality counseling services through professional
certification and education can be a proven tool in combating
substance abuse induced criminal behavior. Using proven
clinical skills within the framework of professional and
ethical responsibility, and much needed client advocacy, is
valuable in addiction and prevention treatment.
The California Association of Addiction Recovery Resources
believes that this bill helps establish part of a career
ladder in the addiction treatment field just as the subject is
being explored nationally.
4)OPPOSITION . The California Psychological Association,
California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists
(CAMFT), National Association of Social Workers, California
Mental Health Directors Association, and the County Alcohol
and Drug Program Administrators Association of California, all
have concerns that DHCS is not the appropriate department to
administer a licensing program, since it is does not currently
license any other healthcare professions. All organizations
recommend the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) or a
certifying board within DCA as a more appropriate place for a
licensing program. The opposition notes that individuals
seeking treatment should have the benefit of a public board
that is tasked with protecting consumers. The Board of
Behavioral Sciences licenses four different practitioner
groups within the Master Mental Health and related field, and
could be a good fit.
The California Psychological Association (CPA) has concerns
regarding the referral process for individuals. Over half of
the potential clients will have a co-occurring mental illness,
so the curriculum listed as a model for programs should
include training case management, referral and integrated
treatment for co-occurring disorders. The CPA is also
SB 570
Page 14
concerned that creating a new license will, intentionally or
unintentionally, limit what a psychologist can do with their
current, broader scope of practice. Requiring a trained
psychologist go back and get an additional Master's degree to
practice alcohol and drug counseling which is already included
in their scope, would be costly and time-consuming to the
professional, as well as limiting consumer choice. Clearer
language needs to be included to ensure that current licensed
professionals could continue to practice in the same manner,
with or without this new license.
The California Psychiatric Association writes that a
foundation of specific education and training is necessary to
create the ability to recognize issues needing referral. Ten
hours of classroom instruction in recognition of co-occurring
mental health or health disorders would be insufficient given
that those ten hours must cover referral processes,
determinations of appropriate levels of care, determining
eligibility for admission to particular treatment programs,
and familiarity in the use of nationally recognized guidelines
and placement tools. The California Psychiatric Association
believes that this is bad policy that will lead to incoherent
regulation of the health professions and puts consumers in
harm's way. The California Psychiatric Association recommends
amendments that would address the following: education to
provide familiarity with and sue of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; coursework in the
biological basis of mental illness and substance abuse issues;
pharmacological treatments and related medical issues; and,
training in either inpatient facilities and/or in county
mental health or substance use clinics.
CAMFT expresses concerns regarding how applicants prove the
required hours of experience. CAMFT states that while current
language suggests that an applicant can receive a letter
affirming hours of experience from a certifying organization,
many applicants will have received hours from agencies and
organizations no longer in existence. To assure consumer
protection, it would be safer to administer the high caliber
licensing process and testing from the beginning rather than
push through a workforce of under-qualified individuals.
The California Association of Alcohol and Drug Educators
believe that this bill would allow for the licensing of
individuals with high school diploma or GED to the same
SB 570
Page 15
educational level of an individual with a master's degree, and
place California far below the national standards.
5)POLICY CONCERNS .
a) Where to place. Currently, DHCS has no licensing
responsibilities. DHCS currently manages 58 programs and
services, including Medi-Cal expansion and the
implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act implementation. There are significant concerns
about DHCS's ability and capacity to implement any
licensing operation, particularly within the time frame
prescribed in this bill. In addition to capacity concerns,
there are concerns about DHCS's ability to provide
appropriate oversight. AB 106 (Committee on Budget),
Chapter 32, Statutes of 2012, transferred DMC functions
from DADP to DHCS in 2012. DHCS is now the payee for all
drug and alcohol treatment programs, and this bill would
also make DHCS the licensing authority for providers of
these programs, establishing a self-regulating system with
no third party oversight.
The Committee may wish to place the provisions of this bill
within DCA. Currently, DCA issues licenses in more than
100 business and 200 professional categories, including
doctors, dentists, contractors, cosmetologists and
automotive repair facilities. DCA includes 41 regulatory
entities (25 boards, nine bureaus, four committees, two
programs, and one commission). These entities establish
minimum qualifications and levels of competency for
licensure. Given DCA's current authority and
responsibilities, a licensing and certification program
such as the one established in this bill is more
appropriate in DCA.
b) Duplicative licenses. The Committee may wish to add
language that ensures that certain that duplicative
licenses will not be required of currently licensed
professions including doctors, nurses, psychologists,
marriage and family therapists, clinical social workers,
and professional clinical counselors.
6)RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS .
a) An amendment to remove the provisions of this bill from
SB 570
Page 16
DHCS and place them in DCA.
b) On page 21, line 2, add "Nothing in this section shall
be construed to mean that persons exempted from this Act
under Section 11975.57 shall be required to be dually
licensed in order to provide alcohol drug counseling
services."
7)RELATED LEGISLATION .
a) AB 1644 (Medina) would have required DMC providers to be
designated as a 'high' categorical risk and be subject to
criminal background checks as a condition of DMC
certification. AB 1644 was held under submission in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
b) SB 1339 (Cannella) requires a county or DHCS, before
contracting with a DMC provider, to obtain criminal
background checks for the owner and key staff. SB 1339 is
in this Committee.
c) AB 1967 (Pan) requires DHCS, when it commences or
concludes an investigation of a DMC provider, to notify
counties that contract with the provider. AB 1967 is in
the Senate Health Committee.
d) SB 1045 (Beall) decreases, from four to two, the minimum
number of participants in a group counseling session
provided by certain DMC providers and eliminates the
maximum of 10 participants. SB 1045 is pending on the
Assembly Floor.
8)PREVIOUS LEGISLATION .
a) AB 2007 (Williams) of 2012 would have established a
licensing and certification system for AOD counselors to be
administered by the Department of Public Health. This bill
was held in Assembly Health Committee
b) SB 1203 (DeSaulnier) of 2010 would have instituted a
licensing and certification structure for AOD counselors by
DADP. SB 1203 was held in the Assembly Rules Committee.
c) SB 707 (DeSaulnier) of 2009, which was substantially
SB 570
Page 17
similar to SB 1203, died on the Assembly Appropriations
Committee Suspense File.
d) AB 239 (DeSaulnier) of 2008 would have established two
categories of licensed alcoholism and drug abuse counselors
for persons licensed to practice alcoholism and drug abuse
counseling under clinical supervision, and persons licensed
to conduct an independent practice of alcoholism and drug
abuse counseling, and to provide supervision to other
counselors, both to be overseen by the DCA Board of
Behavioral Sciences (BBS). AB 239 was vetoed by Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger who stated, in his veto message, 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.
e) AB 1367 (DeSaulnier) of 2007 would have provided for the
licensing, registration and regulation of Alcoholism and
Drug Abuse Counselors, as defined, by BBS. AB 1367 died on
Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File.
f) AB 2571 (Longville) of 2004 would have created the Board
of Alcohol and Other Drugs of Abuse Professionals in DCA
and established requirements for licensure of AOD abuse
counselors. AB 2571 failed passage in the Assembly Health
Committee.
g) AB 1100 (Longville) of 2003 would have enacted the
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors Licensing Law, to be
administered by BBS. AB 1100 was held in the Assembly
Business and Professions Committee.
h) SB 1716 (Vasconcellos) of 2002 would have required BBS
to license and regulate alcohol and drug abuse counselors.
SB 1716 was held in the Assembly Business and Professions
Committee.
i) SB 537 (Vasconcellos) of 2001 would have required DCA to
initiate a comprehensive review of the need for licensing
substance abuse counselors. SB 537 was vetoed by Governor
Gray Davis due to cost concerns. In his veto message, the
Governor directed DADP to require counselors in drug and
alcohol treatment facilities to be certified for quality
assurance purposes.
SB 570
Page 18
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Association of Addiction Recovery Resources
California Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors
California State Sheriffs' Association
Opposition
Breining Institute
California Association for Alcohol/Drug Educators
California Association of DUI Treatment Programs
California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists
California Psychiatric Association
Oppose Unless Amended
California Psychological Association
National Association of Social Workers
Analysis Prepared by : Paula Villescaz / HEALTH / (916)
319-2097