As the Dean of the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University, and a Professor with an affiliation in our university’s academic program in Counseling, I am pleased to take this opportunity to provide commentary with respect to the proposed regulations in VA to require applicants for licensure in Virginia as a Professional Counselor to graduate from an academic program accredited by CACREP. The issues underlying the proposed regulations have been a subject of much debate in Virginia. Consistently, faculty members from George Mason University’s nationally respected academic program in the field of counseling have expressed concern about, and opposition, to this proposal.

The proposed regulation would add a requirement that all university counseling training programs leading to licensure in Virginia must be accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), or its affiliate, the Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE). George Mason University is strongly opposed to this regulation and believes that the overly restrictive requirements are not in the interest of public protection while significantly limiting the employment of highly trained, competent counselors. 

I add my voice in opposition to this proposal.

Currently, professional counselors may be licensed by examination or by endorsement. At this time, the law governing the licensure of Professional Counselors requires individuals seeking licensure by examination to complete their education in a degree program offered by a college or university that is accredited by a regional accrediting agency, has an identifiable counselor training faculty and student body, and has an academic unit responsible for the counseling program that has clear authority and primary responsibility for the core and specialty areas of counseling study. In addition, individuals must complete specified residency requirements and pass a written examination as prescribed by the Virginia Board of Counseling.

In my view, and the view of many colleagues, this set of rigorous requirements is sufficient while also allowing innovation in the academic preparation of professional counselors that transcends the rigid CACREP and CORE accreditation model. Academic programs could choose whether to seek accreditation through CACREP or CORE, which presently is the model in the Commonwealth.

In addition, we question the impact of CACREP/CORE accreditation on the practice of counseling. It is my view, and the view of many colleagues, that research has not determined significant quality differences in CACREP-trained versus non-CACREP-trained counselors, bringing into question the benefits of this proposed regulation. It is also important to note that it is my understanding that fewer than 20% of colleges and universities throughout the United States currently have received accreditation by the  CACREP/CORE. Consequently, the proposed change has the potential significantly to reduce the number of professional counselors from outside Virginia who would be eligible to become licensed in the Commonwealth and credentialed to provide critical mental health services.

In summary, and for all of the reasons cited, I oppose the adoption of the proposed regulations.

Mark R. Ginsberg, Ph.D

Dean and Professor

College of Education and Human Development

George Mason University