California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday signed Assembly Bill 1759, making a couple of key changes in continuing education (CE) requirements for California MFTs, clinical counselors, and clinical social workers. There’s a new one-time Telehealth CE requirement for everyone, and a new annual Law and Ethics CE requirement for Associates.
continuing education
Now is the time to move your practice online
If you haven’t noticed, telehealth is an ongoing theme around here. Last year, we posted on what we know and don’t know about online therapy, and four reasons to move your practice online. I also proudly chaired the workgroup that developed AAMFT’s Best Practices in the Online Practice of Couple and Family Therapy, which is available for free here.
We know a lot of therapists are still worried about using technology in their practices, and we have good news — regulations are getting clearer, and so is the technology itself. In short, it’s easier and safer than ever to move part or all of your therapy practice online.
Does continuing education matter for prelicensed therapists?
Therapists and counselors never stop learning over the course of their careers. The educational process starts in graduate school, where trainees and students absorb as much information as they can within and outside of the classroom setting. In California, following graduation and registration with the BBS (Board of Behavioral Sciences), associate marriage and family therapists seek work and training opportunities that will allow them to continue expanding upon their knowledge of therapeutic techniques and treatment modalities. Once licensed, marriage and family therapists are required to obtain CEUs (Continuing Education Units*) in order to continue practicing.
We know that continuing education is important, but do continuing education hours matter for prelicensed therapists? CEUs are required in order to renew licenses with the BBS, but not registrations; therefore, the answer may seem like a straightforward “no.” The more complex answer is that CEUs can be beneficial for prelicensed therapists in certain situations.
California CE providers routinely violate ad regulations
A review of 15 advertisements for continuing education events for California MFTs and LCSWs finds that all of them violate state regulations by leaving out required information. If no one is complaining, do we need the regulations?
Continuing education providers in California are expected to offer some basic information about themselves and their events when advertising, just as licensed marriage and family therapists are expected to have our licensure information attached to any advertising we do. Ideally, these disclosure requirements prevent less-than-reputable folks from putting on less-than-worthwhile CE events to swindle therapists out of money.
But no one is following the requirements.
And that’s a literal “no one,” at least in our sample. Not one advertisement followed the letter of the law.
===
We (my research assistant and I) reviewed ads from every issue in volume 21 (2009) of The Therapist magazine, published by the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists every two months. We want to emphasize that CAMFT is not in any way responsible for policing outside ads; it is the CE providers who are solely responsible for their own advertising content. We found a total of 15 unique ads, many of which appeared in multiple issues; we did not count duplicates in our calculations.
Section 1887.9 of the California Code of Regulations (it can be viewed in the BBS laws & regulations booklet, page 142 by the on-page numbering, page 149 of the PDF) requires all CE providers to:ensure that information publicizing a continuing education course is accurate and includes the following:
(a) the provider’s name;
(b) the provider number, if a board-approved provider;
(c) the statement “Course meets the qualifications for _______ hours of continuing education credit for MFTs and/or LCSWs as required by the California Board of Behavioral Sciences”;
(d) the provider’s policy on refunds in cases of non-attendance by the registrant; and
(e) a clear, concise description of the course content and objectives.
Providers seem to be simply ignoring this. We found a total of 15 unique ads for in-person CE events. We ignored ads for online or mail-in courses; they usually were advertising the provider, and not a specific course, and thus they are probably not subject to the above requirements.
We found that among the 15 ads we reviewed, providers routinely ignored all of the required information except the provider’s name:
| Item | Ads containing |
Ads missing |
% of ads containing |
| 1. Provider name | 14 | 1 | 93% |
| 2. Provider number | 7 | 8 | 47% |
| 3. “Meets qualifications” statement |
0 | 15 | 0% |
| 4. Refund policy | 2 | 13 | 13% |
| 5. Course description | 8 | 7 | 53% |
| Items present | Ads | % of all ads |
| One or more | 15 | 100% |
| Two or more | 11 | 73% |
| Three or more | 3 | 20% |
| Four or more | 2 | 13% |
| All five | 0 | 0% |
===
The relative rarity with which the requirements are followed, combined with the relative lack of complaints against continuing education providers, raises an important question: Are these regulations really helping anybody?
Certainly the BBS has better things to do with its enforcement unit than go after such minor omissions. Maybe it would be better to take the requirements off the books entirely. Or, maybe the current landscape is just fine. After all, it allows licensees who feel they have been duped by unscrupulous CE providers to complain, and gives the BBS leverage to act against the provider who failed to advertise appropriately. It’s the CE-advertising equivalent of jaywalking: we all want the cops to focus their work on more important things, and it’s really only a problem when somebody gets hurt. === If you’re wondering, the flowers in the picture are forget-me-nots. Seemed appropriate.