Discussion: View Thread

Dear Colleagues,

In order to prevent the inevitable onslaught of bantering and bashing of other professions that sometimes arises on this listserv, I would like to respectfully clarify the qualifications and requirements for obtaining the ABVE Fellow credential.

Academic Credential
Applicants must hold a Master's or Doctorate in one of the following disciplines:

• Health-related field (e.g., an MSW qualifies)

• Education, Rehabilitation, Vocational/Counseling, or similar fields

Required Experience (Minimum 3 Years)

• Documented experience in assessment of vocational capacity and vocational expert forensics (e.g., functional assessments, job analyses, forensic vocational evaluations).

Specific Training & Experience

• Demonstrated training and practice in assessment tools, psychometric testing, job analysis, job placement, job surveys, and forensic applications, including testimony and vocational reports.

Additional Requirements

• Submission of a forensic work sample demonstrating expertise

• Passing the ABVE certification examination

• Three letters of reference from individuals with direct knowledge of forensic vocational expert work (attorneys, judges, arbitrators).

Any questions regarding eligibility or credentialing should be directed to ABVE directly, as they maintain the authoritative standards.

Beyond the technical qualifications, I would like to voice a broader concern. Many professionals read these discussions, and the tone we set here matters. When discourse implies that some are "not worthy" of a credential-even when they have legitimately earned it-it creates an unnecessary sense of gatekeeping. This kind of commentary risks isolating colleagues and undermining the value of their professional contributions.

Our community is strongest when we support one another's credentials and experience, while reserving critique for constructive, evidence-based discussion. Allowing disparaging remarks about certain backgrounds or degrees not only reflects poorly on this listserv, but also on the larger organizations, including IARP, that are affiliated with our professional community.

I trust we can uphold respectful, inclusive, and accurate dialogue going forward.

Christopher Skerritt CRC, ABVE/F

Dear Colleagues,

In order to prevent the inevitable onslaught of bantering and bashing of other professions that sometimes arises on this listserv, I would like to respectfully clarify the qualifications and requirements for obtaining the ABVE Fellow credential.

Academic Credential
Applicants must hold a Master's or Doctorate in one of the following disciplines:

• Health-related field (e.g., an MSW qualifies)

• Education, Rehabilitation, Vocational/Counseling, or similar fields

Required Experience (Minimum 3 Years)

• Documented experience in assessment of vocational capacity and vocational expert forensics (e.g., functional assessments, job analyses, forensic vocational evaluations).

Specific Training & Experience

• Demonstrated training and practice in assessment tools, psychometric testing, job analysis, job placement, job surveys, and forensic applications, including testimony and vocational reports.

Additional Requirements

• Submission of a forensic work sample demonstrating expertise

• Passing the ABVE certification examination

• Three letters of reference from individuals with direct knowledge of forensic vocational expert work (attorneys, judges, arbitrators).

Any questions regarding eligibility or credentialing should be directed to ABVE directly, as they maintain the authoritative standards.

Beyond the technical qualifications, I would like to voice a broader concern. Many professionals read these discussions, and the tone we set here matters. When discourse implies that some are "not worthy" of a credential-even when they have legitimately earned it-it creates an unnecessary sense of gatekeeping. This kind of commentary risks isolating colleagues and undermining the value of their professional contributions.

Our community is strongest when we support one another's credentials and experience, while reserving critique for constructive, evidence-based discussion. Allowing disparaging remarks about certain backgrounds or degrees not only reflects poorly on this listserv, but also on the larger organizations, including IARP, that are affiliated with our professional community.

I trust we can uphold respectful, inclusive, and accurate dialogue going forward.

Christopher Skerritt CRC, ABVE/F

Michelle,

Thank you for the clarification and for your advocacy work around vocational expert qualifications. From my understanding (and please correct me if I am mistaken), the white paper you referenced was developed for the Forensic Section as a whole. Given the specificity of the Social Security VE (SSVE) practice, a number of the operational questions it has prompted may be better addressed on the SSVE listserv, where the audience is focused on that venue's requirements and workflows.

I want to be clear that my intent is not to "poke the bear." My concern is about tone and venue. Discussions about scope of practice and minimum qualifications are appropriate and important; at the same time, when conversations become personal or categorical, newer colleagues can read that as gatekeeping. That perception has real consequences for the pipeline into our field, which is already facing measurable workforce strain.

By way of data:

• The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects rehabilitation counselor employment to grow 2% (2023–2033)-slower than the average for all occupations-suggesting a relatively tight labor market and limited slack to absorb attrition (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2025). 

• A national VR workforce session hosted by George Washington University's CRCRE reported ~14.2% counselor vacancy and ~14.9% support-staff vacancy among reporting state VR agencies, underscoring persistent recruitment and retention challenges (Walsh, 2024). 

• Recent peer-reviewed research continues to document turnover intent among state VR counselors as a system stressor (e.g., salary compression, caseloads, and role demands), consistent with earlier findings of double-digit turnover (Chan, 2003, as summarized; see also White et al., 2024) (White et al., 2024). 

• Credentialing demographics indicate an aging CRC workforce (median age skewing 40–60+) and a finite pool of certificants (~13,127 CRCs as of January 14, 2025), which heightens the need for a collegial, on-ramp posture toward qualified entrants (Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification [CRCC], 2025). 

• Multiple state CSNA/SRC reports explicitly cite counselor shortages and turnover as barriers to timely service delivery (e.g., Wisconsin DVR CSNA, February 24, 2025). 

In that context, my ask is simply that we keep debates focused on evidence and standards rather than on individuals or broad labels, and that we route SSVE-specific issues to the SSVE list when feasible. Doing so helps us model the professionalism we want newer colleagues to emulate and supports a healthier pipeline for a field that-by the data-is already stretched.

I appreciate your leadership and the years you have invested in this work. If I have misunderstood the intended scope or audience for the white paper, I welcome a correction.

Respectfully,
Christopher Skerritt, CRC, LRC, CVE, IPEC, ABVE/F, CLCP, MSCC, QRC

Dear Colleagues,

In order to prevent the inevitable onslaught of bantering and bashing of other professions that sometimes arises on this listserv, I would like to respectfully clarify the qualifications and requirements for obtaining the ABVE Fellow credential.

Academic Credential
Applicants must hold a Master's or Doctorate in one of the following disciplines:

• Health-related field (e.g., an MSW qualifies)

• Education, Rehabilitation, Vocational/Counseling, or similar fields

Required Experience (Minimum 3 Years)

• Documented experience in assessment of vocational capacity and vocational expert forensics (e.g., functional assessments, job analyses, forensic vocational evaluations).

Specific Training & Experience

• Demonstrated training and practice in assessment tools, psychometric testing, job analysis, job placement, job surveys, and forensic applications, including testimony and vocational reports.

Additional Requirements

• Submission of a forensic work sample demonstrating expertise

• Passing the ABVE certification examination

• Three letters of reference from individuals with direct knowledge of forensic vocational expert work (attorneys, judges, arbitrators).

Any questions regarding eligibility or credentialing should be directed to ABVE directly, as they maintain the authoritative standards.

Beyond the technical qualifications, I would like to voice a broader concern. Many professionals read these discussions, and the tone we set here matters. When discourse implies that some are "not worthy" of a credential-even when they have legitimately earned it-it creates an unnecessary sense of gatekeeping. This kind of commentary risks isolating colleagues and undermining the value of their professional contributions.

Our community is strongest when we support one another's credentials and experience, while reserving critique for constructive, evidence-based discussion. Allowing disparaging remarks about certain backgrounds or degrees not only reflects poorly on this listserv, but also on the larger organizations, including IARP, that are affiliated with our professional community.

I trust we can uphold respectful, inclusive, and accurate dialogue going forward.

Christopher Skerritt CRC, ABVE/F

Michelle,

Thank you for the clarification and for your advocacy work around vocational expert qualifications. From my understanding (and please correct me if I am mistaken), the white paper you referenced was developed for the Forensic Section as a whole. Given the specificity of the Social Security VE (SSVE) practice, a number of the operational questions it has prompted may be better addressed on the SSVE listserv, where the audience is focused on that venue's requirements and workflows.

I want to be clear that my intent is not to "poke the bear." My concern is about tone and venue. Discussions about scope of practice and minimum qualifications are appropriate and important; at the same time, when conversations become personal or categorical, newer colleagues can read that as gatekeeping. That perception has real consequences for the pipeline into our field, which is already facing measurable workforce strain.

By way of data:

• The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects rehabilitation counselor employment to grow 2% (2023–2033)-slower than the average for all occupations-suggesting a relatively tight labor market and limited slack to absorb attrition (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2025). 

• A national VR workforce session hosted by George Washington University's CRCRE reported ~14.2% counselor vacancy and ~14.9% support-staff vacancy among reporting state VR agencies, underscoring persistent recruitment and retention challenges (Walsh, 2024). 

• Recent peer-reviewed research continues to document turnover intent among state VR counselors as a system stressor (e.g., salary compression, caseloads, and role demands), consistent with earlier findings of double-digit turnover (Chan, 2003, as summarized; see also White et al., 2024) (White et al., 2024). 

• Credentialing demographics indicate an aging CRC workforce (median age skewing 40–60+) and a finite pool of certificants (~13,127 CRCs as of January 14, 2025), which heightens the need for a collegial, on-ramp posture toward qualified entrants (Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification [CRCC], 2025). 

• Multiple state CSNA/SRC reports explicitly cite counselor shortages and turnover as barriers to timely service delivery (e.g., Wisconsin DVR CSNA, February 24, 2025). 

In that context, my ask is simply that we keep debates focused on evidence and standards rather than on individuals or broad labels, and that we route SSVE-specific issues to the SSVE list when feasible. Doing so helps us model the professionalism we want newer colleagues to emulate and supports a healthier pipeline for a field that-by the data-is already stretched.

I appreciate your leadership and the years you have invested in this work. If I have misunderstood the intended scope or audience for the white paper, I welcome a correction.

Respectfully,
Christopher Skerritt, CRC, LRC, CVE, IPEC, ABVE/F, CLCP, MSCC, QRC

Dear Colleagues,

In order to prevent the inevitable onslaught of bantering and bashing of other professions that sometimes arises on this listserv, I would like to respectfully clarify the qualifications and requirements for obtaining the ABVE Fellow credential.

Academic Credential
Applicants must hold a Master's or Doctorate in one of the following disciplines:

• Health-related field (e.g., an MSW qualifies)

• Education, Rehabilitation, Vocational/Counseling, or similar fields

Required Experience (Minimum 3 Years)

• Documented experience in assessment of vocational capacity and vocational expert forensics (e.g., functional assessments, job analyses, forensic vocational evaluations).

Specific Training & Experience

• Demonstrated training and practice in assessment tools, psychometric testing, job analysis, job placement, job surveys, and forensic applications, including testimony and vocational reports.

Additional Requirements

• Submission of a forensic work sample demonstrating expertise

• Passing the ABVE certification examination

• Three letters of reference from individuals with direct knowledge of forensic vocational expert work (attorneys, judges, arbitrators).

Any questions regarding eligibility or credentialing should be directed to ABVE directly, as they maintain the authoritative standards.

Beyond the technical qualifications, I would like to voice a broader concern. Many professionals read these discussions, and the tone we set here matters. When discourse implies that some are "not worthy" of a credential-even when they have legitimately earned it-it creates an unnecessary sense of gatekeeping. This kind of commentary risks isolating colleagues and undermining the value of their professional contributions.

Our community is strongest when we support one another's credentials and experience, while reserving critique for constructive, evidence-based discussion. Allowing disparaging remarks about certain backgrounds or degrees not only reflects poorly on this listserv, but also on the larger organizations, including IARP, that are affiliated with our professional community.

I trust we can uphold respectful, inclusive, and accurate dialogue going forward.

Christopher Skerritt CRC, ABVE/F

Dear Colleagues,

In order to prevent the inevitable onslaught of bantering and bashing of other professions that sometimes arises on this listserv, I would like to respectfully clarify the qualifications and requirements for obtaining the ABVE Fellow credential.

Academic Credential
Applicants must hold a Master's or Doctorate in one of the following disciplines:

• Health-related field (e.g., an MSW qualifies)

• Education, Rehabilitation, Vocational/Counseling, or similar fields

Required Experience (Minimum 3 Years)

• Documented experience in assessment of vocational capacity and vocational expert forensics (e.g., functional assessments, job analyses, forensic vocational evaluations).

Specific Training & Experience

• Demonstrated training and practice in assessment tools, psychometric testing, job analysis, job placement, job surveys, and forensic applications, including testimony and vocational reports.

Additional Requirements

• Submission of a forensic work sample demonstrating expertise

• Passing the ABVE certification examination

• Three letters of reference from individuals with direct knowledge of forensic vocational expert work (attorneys, judges, arbitrators).

Any questions regarding eligibility or credentialing should be directed to ABVE directly, as they maintain the authoritative standards.

Beyond the technical qualifications, I would like to voice a broader concern. Many professionals read these discussions, and the tone we set here matters. When discourse implies that some are "not worthy" of a credential-even when they have legitimately earned it-it creates an unnecessary sense of gatekeeping. This kind of commentary risks isolating colleagues and undermining the value of their professional contributions.

Our community is strongest when we support one another's credentials and experience, while reserving critique for constructive, evidence-based discussion. Allowing disparaging remarks about certain backgrounds or degrees not only reflects poorly on this listserv, but also on the larger organizations, including IARP, that are affiliated with our professional community.

I trust we can uphold respectful, inclusive, and accurate dialogue going forward.

Christopher Skerritt CRC, ABVE/F

Dear Colleagues,

In order to prevent the inevitable onslaught of bantering and bashing of other professions that sometimes arises on this listserv, I would like to respectfully clarify the qualifications and requirements for obtaining the ABVE Fellow credential.

Academic Credential
Applicants must hold a Master's or Doctorate in one of the following disciplines:

• Health-related field (e.g., an MSW qualifies)

• Education, Rehabilitation, Vocational/Counseling, or similar fields

Required Experience (Minimum 3 Years)

• Documented experience in assessment of vocational capacity and vocational expert forensics (e.g., functional assessments, job analyses, forensic vocational evaluations).

Specific Training & Experience

• Demonstrated training and practice in assessment tools, psychometric testing, job analysis, job placement, job surveys, and forensic applications, including testimony and vocational reports.

Additional Requirements

• Submission of a forensic work sample demonstrating expertise

• Passing the ABVE certification examination

• Three letters of reference from individuals with direct knowledge of forensic vocational expert work (attorneys, judges, arbitrators).

Any questions regarding eligibility or credentialing should be directed to ABVE directly, as they maintain the authoritative standards.

Beyond the technical qualifications, I would like to voice a broader concern. Many professionals read these discussions, and the tone we set here matters. When discourse implies that some are "not worthy" of a credential-even when they have legitimately earned it-it creates an unnecessary sense of gatekeeping. This kind of commentary risks isolating colleagues and undermining the value of their professional contributions.

Our community is strongest when we support one another's credentials and experience, while reserving critique for constructive, evidence-based discussion. Allowing disparaging remarks about certain backgrounds or degrees not only reflects poorly on this listserv, but also on the larger organizations, including IARP, that are affiliated with our professional community.

I trust we can uphold respectful, inclusive, and accurate dialogue going forward.

Christopher Skerritt CRC, ABVE/F