by Stephanie L. Haft, UC Berkeley
After graduate school, internship, and postdoc, there is still one more step to complete in order to independently work with clients as a psychologist: licensure. To be licensed, all states have requirements that are typically under the jurisdiction of state licensing boards. The state uses these licensing requirements to establish standards and protect its citizens from unethical or untrained psychologists. Although each state has its own licensing requirements and processes, an education requirement is a common component. Specifically, degrees in psychology must be obtained from programs that match certain criteria, such as accreditation by the American Psychological Association (APA).
Recently, programs that are accredited by PCSAS have made efforts to establish parity in such state licensing regulations, so that graduates from either APA-accredited or PCSAS-accredited programs can meet the education licensing requirement. Currently, there are seven states where graduates from PCSAS-only accredited programs can be licensed: California, New York, Illinois, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, and Michigan. This article explores the processes or interpretations by which parity in licensure for graduates from PCSAS programs is achieved. Interviews with key players involved in licensure for graduates from PCSAS programs in Virginia, New York, and Delaware provide a window into commonalities and differences in state licensure requirements and the general steps to enact changes in these requirements.
Dr. Lee Cooper, a Clinical Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at Virginia Tech, has become quite familiar with the process involved in changing state licensing regulations in Virginia. For Dr. Cooper, the first formal step was to file a formal petition to change the regulations surrounding state licensure with the state psychology board to include PCSAS as an accrediting body. The board opened this petition for public comment in an online forum, and then discussed it without further input – they ultimately came to the consensus that they did not approve of the proposed change. However, independently of this process, the state psychology board submitted a number of revisions to the language surrounding education requirements for licensure, and noted that students from programs with “any other accrediting body that is approved by board” will be eligible for licensure. These changes have gone through the state legislature and have been signed off on by the state governor. Dr. Cooper has not given up on pushing the board to add PCSAS explicitly as the “other approved accrediting body,” and has noted that students have grouped together to write a letter to the board in support of this effort. This process has taken about two years so far, and Dr. Cooper is hopeful that the students’ voices will be powerful in influencing the board’s decision.
The process to achieve parity in licensure requirements in New York was comparably more straightforward. According to Dr. Joanne Davila, the Associate Director of Clinical Training at Stony Brook University’s Department of Psychology, the state’s psychology licensure laws did not refer to any accreditation requirement. So, although she made preparations to enact changes in these laws, ultimately the New York state licensing board indicated that changes were not necessary. This is a similar situation to California – the laws are written without reference to an accrediting body, so as long as the other requirements are met, graduates from both APA and PCSAS programs can sit for licensure in New York.
Delaware was one of the first states to implement changes in state legislation that enables graduates from PCSAS-accredited programs to qualify for licensure. Dr. Robert Simons was chair of the University of Delaware’s Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the time and was a key player in carrying out this process. After consulting with a hired lobbyist, state psychological association, and the state psychology board, Dr. Simons went to state legislators and could demonstrate that there was no serious opposition to the proposed change. Paralleling the letter written by students in Virginia, student voices from the University of Delaware held power in this process. Dr. Ariel Williamson was a graduate student at the time, and was involved in attending meetings and board hearings to advocate for PCSAS recognition. In her words, “Delaware wanted to actively engage students in the process because they were really the ones who were going to be most impacted by it.” Dr. Simons reported that this entire process took approximately three months, although he cautioned that “getting a law changed is not for the faint of heart.” He recommended that programs that hope to enact similar changes engage with a university government affairs official or a lobbyist who will have more familiarity with the state legislature. Dr. Simons also noted that in virtually every state, there is a pathway to licensure that is indicated for people who are non-APA graduates. Most state licensing laws derive from boilerplate language from the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB), which currently does not have reference to PCSAS and instead includes a number of educational requirements pertaining to content areas that programs need to cover.
In other words, graduates from PCSAS-only programs can be eligible for state licensure if: (a) states have enacted legislation explicitly naming PCSAS as an approved accrediting body to meet the education requirement; (b) states have ambiguous language without reference to any accrediting body; or (c) states have a list of educational requirements for students who are not from programs accredited by approved bodies such as APA. In this last case, students must work with their Director of Clinical Training to be diligent in retaining records of program coursework and training, and should ensure they meet all of the requirements outlined by state licensing laws. Still, PCSAS programs are encouraged to make efforts in their states to achieve parity for graduates from PCSAS-only programs in terms of state licensing language and requirements. In drawing on common lessons from Virginia, New York, and Delaware, such states should be sure to garner support from key stakeholders in the process such as students, other clinical psychology programs, state psychological associations, and local hospitals. In addition, programs will benefit from working with a sponsor who has experience in state legislation. Finally, faculty and students can keep working to correct misconceptions about PCSAS and continue to embody the integration of the science and practice of psychology in clinical training.
Thank you to Dr. Robert Simons, Dr. Lee Cooper, Dr. Joanne Davila, and Dr. Ariel Williamson who all provided interviews for this article on their experiences with enacting changes in state licensing laws.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this newsletter are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS).