There has been a lot of work overtime to clarify what it means to be a professional counselor.  Because our profession is so closely associated with the other helping professionals, and out title has been used as a generic way to identify the work of our peers, defining what is means to be a Clinical Mental Health Counselor, a Mariage and Family Counselor, a Rehabilitation Counselor and a School Counselor has been a long and complex journey that is still underway.  Just like the other helping professionals, part of our identity comes from the uniqueness in the subjects we are trained in and who provides that training.  As a Counselor Educator, I am not able to teach in any graduate program outside of a counseling one.  Additionally, as certified counselor supervisor in Virginia, I am only permitted to supervise counselors.  And honestly, I understand that my areas of expertise and with counselors. 

In the same way, I would ask that our peer in the helping professions, in this instance Social Workers, but also Psychologist, honor the uniqueness of their areas of expertise and training. As noted in the very well case presented by both CSI and ODU, there are differences in the identity and training of Social Workers and Counselors. These differences are here for specific reasons. If our field did not need our unique identities, then why the bother to formulate these specialized spaces we fit best into the whole of serving our communities?  We as Counselors have a place in the helping professions and to dilute our unique identity by allowing another helping professional to train our future would nullify the wholeness we bring to the helping profession overall.

As for the argument that supervision to difficult to obtain… I believe there are better ways to address this problem.  How did the pilot go for the accelerated path to licensure? What happened?

Instead of legislating for opening supervision to another helping profession, how about legislating that supervision be covered by third party payment, or that a supplemental payment system be formulated.  Or increase payment rates of counseling services so LPCs can then set aside time to volunteer in a supervisory role.

What about forming supervision collectives that can support LPCs in becoming and remaining in a supervisory role?  I have had multiple conversations with LPCs who attempted to supervise one resident and then stopped because the responsibility was too high and support too low.  There are so many more things that could be done to support increasing the number of LPCs who can and will supervise instead of opening supervision up to other disciplines. Additionally, opening supervision up will not take care of the financial burden that is a barrier for so many residents.

I think opening supervision of residents up to other helping professionals is a huge step backwards for the Counseling profession and will not solve the multi-layered issue that has led us to this place of needing more helping professionals in our state.  Lets be honest, is our need for mental health services really going to be fixed by allowing LCSWs to supervise (especially when we are not even talking about reciprocation of LPCs supervising LCSWs) or is this a simple distraction from the fact that we as helping professionals get paid so little, when looking at the level of education and training that is required, and the toll our work takes on the mind, body and soul… In the marketplace of work, we as helping professionals are not valued and are typically underpaid.  Wouldn’t our time be better spent figuring out how to shift some our larger cultural values to reflect the importance of mental health instead of trying to water down a profession’s identity?