Is
Rehabilitation Counseling in Danger?
A number
of events and actions have been taking place that would indicate the field of
rehabilitation counseling as we know it is in imminent danger. This article
will address several recent and current movements that could jeopardize the
existence of our profession, professional standing, and possibly our very jobs.
As many of
us know, there has been a movement across the country for unification under the
umbrella of Professional Counseling and the LPC license which would include
mental health counselors as well as rehabilitation counselors. Many IARP
members are already LPCs in their state. While there are positives with the
idea of parity and unification of the entire counseling profession, there are
also indications that some specific decisions and actions that are taking place
disenfranchise some specializations in counseling such as vocational
rehabilitation.
Here are
some of the events that have transpired and are now evolving:
20/20
Delegates recommendations and the CORE/CACREP Merger?
When the
‘20/20: A Vision for the Future of Counseling’ initiative began in 2005, the
goal was to deal with counseling license portability. The 20/20 delegates in early
2006 expanded their focus toward strengthening and unifying the counseling
profession as they perceived the counseling field to have an identity crisis.
The idea for this oversight committee addressing the future of the counseling
professional’s health came from the American Counseling Association (ACA) and
the American Association of State Counseling Boards (AASCB). What is disturbing
about the structure of this committee is that of the 31 participating
organizations, 23 of them are divisions of ACA, one is an honor society, four
are accrediting bodies including CRCC and CORE. Only NCRE and NRCA are separate
professional associations. In effect, rehabilitation counselors and IARP have
little if any voice at this table.
The
leadership inside ACA have stated that they believe and are pushing for the
view that we are all counselors first, that there is a core body of knowledge
and skills which unite us, and then afterwards we obtain additional training
and experience in specialty areas such as rehabilitation counseling, drug and
alcohol counseling, etc. Their goal is to speak as one profession, not many
related professions under one umbrella. A former president of ACA in 2006
stated their goal clearly, that LPCs be the core mental health profession. However,
as they have moved forward in their pursuit of one profession, they are risking
disenfranchising many professionals already working in their chosen fields.
Although
the focus appears to be on mental health, and the plan is for clinical mental
health counselors to compete with psychologists and the American Psychological
Association (APA), rehabilitation counseling is being swept up in this
movement.Further, when it comes to a discussion of counseling, for many
spearheading this movement, rehabilitation counseling is geared to psychiatric,
not medical or vocational counseling.
As a
result of recommendations from the 20/20 delegate meetings, CORE and CACREP
were in conversations about merging the two academic credentialing bodies. One
of the big sticking points for CORE was a de-emphasizing of rehabilitation
counseling education or putting rehab education programs under the larger
umbrella of mental health counseling. CACREP, NBCC and ACA have been unwilling
to compromise and allow CORE to maintain its existence in a cooperative
fashion; rather their goal by all appearances is to absorb CORE. How will this
affect us? Many rehabilitation counselors now in practice did not graduate from
CACREP accredited programs, nor do they qualify under NBCC rules for licensure
(LPC). Without grand parenting clauses for all, many will not be eligible for
the LCP license, and this has far reaching implications for the practice of
rehabilitation counseling.
Representatives
from CORE will present on this topic and CORE’s plan moving forward at the IARP
Forensic Conference in Charleston this November.
New
Jersey Assembly Bill A1539
Vocational rehabilitation counselors have held their own license in New Jersey
since respective licensing became available to them, and to LPC’s
simultaneously, in 1997. As separate licenses, the Scope of Practice of the LRC
identified the occupational role of vocational counselor, and the LPC
identified its separate psychiatric and mental health counseling Scope of
Practice. Currently, respective licensees may not cross licenses and perform
counseling services for each other’s clients or consumers. As such, the
consumer with vocational disabilities in New Jersey benefits from services
offered by the LRC. Those with psychiatric or mental health issues benefit from
the services of the LPC. Some counselors hold both licenses as a means to serve
both populations.
New Jersey
Assembly Bill A1539 would eliminate the Licensed Rehabilitation Counselor
(LRC) designation and would leave intact the LPC license. We have been told the
bill’s ultimate goal is that of uniting the Counseling profession and of better
protecting the consumer. But is this really the case? Due to the historic
distinction between the two licenses, persons with disabilities would also be
negatively impacted. With a sole license, at least at onset, there would not be
sufficiently trained, educated, seasoned, and certified LPCs readily available
to replace those former LRC’s who no longer would be available to serve persons
with disabilities as they do now. Additionally, this Bill completely
annihilates any value of the CRC designation, a key premise for current LRC’s;
but rather, the Bill favors of the NBCC designation which pertains to mental
health counseling.
“Grand
parenting,” if it were to occur at all, would entail narrow and selective
passage for LRC’s to become LPC’s. For some long-term LRC’s, requirements for
passage cannot be met as CACREP degree content did not even exist at the time
many LRCs obtained of their graduate degree. In addition, if rehabilitation
counseling were to become a “specialty designation” under the LPC, such “could
only be granted for licensees who have a current NBCC specialty designation,”
according to N.J.A.C. 13:34-14.1(a). While some rehabilitation counselors may
qualify for this, many others do not, and it would appear that they would
thereby forfeit their long term license with no recourse. Many also have no
interest in being mental health counselors; this was not their career goal and
nothing has changed for them in this regard.
There has
been no legislative movement on Bill A1539 since April 2013 when it was
reported that its passage was “imminent.” To date, there is no Senate sponsor
for the Bill, and opposition to the Bill has been noted to legislative members.
But more opposition sent from consumers, licensees, and associations would be
important to make the point that this Bill in its current form disenfranchises
LRCs and those consumers with disabilities.
A few IARP
members remain diligent in their watch of this bill and letters have been
written by individuals and CRCC. Letters are also forthcoming from IARP and the
IARP-New Jersey Chapter. To read the Bill and contact the Bill’s sponsor,
Assemblyman John Burzichelli, go to:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/A2000/1539_I1.HTM.
Ohio
House Bill 567
HB 567 would require graduation from an institution accredited by CACREP in
mental health counseling, addiction counseling or other accredited counseling
programs. This may result in the lack of recognition of graduates from
CORE-accredited programs as it relates to licensure as a Professional Counselor
(LPC) in the state of Ohio. Further, the language requires licensure for
rehabilitation counselors employed by the Ohio Rehabilitation Services
Commission (RSC) or creates the opportunity to downgrade the classification for
RSC rehabilitation counselors in order to avoid the licensing requirement. It
appears this would remove the exemption from licensure for RSC employees who
engage in professional counseling as defined by Ohio law, but not others
practicing rehabilitation counseling.
The Bill
passed the House on December 4, 2012, and was expected to be introduced to the
Senate by June 1, 2013, with little resistance expected. The Bill has stripped
out rehabilitation counseling, and unless licensed as a Professional Counselor
(LPC), rehabilitation counselors in Ohio would have to call themselves
rehabilitation professionals and the services they provide, rehabilitation
services.
Several
IARP Ohio members along with the Ohio Rehabilitation Association have been
fighting the language and passage of this Bill in its current form. The link to
HB 567 is at:
www.legislature.state.oh.us/search.cfm.
To communicate with the Bill’s sponsor, contact: Representative Barbara Sears
and Legislative Aide Joe Russell can be reached at (614) 466-1731 or by email
at: www.ohiohouse.gov/barbara-r-sears/contact.
Consider
& Act
Do these issues and events touch you? Are you are winding down your career? Do
you have a state license of some sort? Even if you do not feel any of this
affects you, these issues will affect many of your colleagues, the profession
as a whole, and those students and younger professionals who want a chance at a
career in rehabilitation counseling. Are we too late to the party? Do we need to
save our profession and our professional standing? We should as an organization
and as individual professionals support our colleagues in their fight, as if
these Bills pass in New Jersey and Ohio in current form, next will be other
states, maybe yours.
IARP
leadership will continue to actively monitor and respond as these and other
issues evolve, and we will keep you informed.You can also do your part. Begin
watching as events unfold in your own state and nationally. Speak up and let
IARP leadership know if you get wind of something. Support your fellow members
in states currently under attack. We are a strong, vibrant organization with a
great deal of talent, compassion and leadership. Stay involved/get involved.
Lynne
Tracy,
IARP President-Elect