Licensure Concerns Presented to Consumer Affairs |
| Posted by Administrator (admin) on Apr 05 2007 |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Licensure Concerns Presented to Department of Consumer Affairs — Occupational Analysis No Longer a Requirement
Excerpt from FREEDOM July-August 2005
In May the California Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors (CAADAC) met with Department of Consumer Affairs Chief Deputy Director, Sherry Mehl, to discuss options for bringing professional counselors under the Department’s review. “The Department of Consumer Affairs is where professionals are regulated and that is where we have to start,” explained CAADAC President, Warren Daniels. “Sherry Mehl is the former Executive Director of the Board of Behavioral Science and was instrumental in pushing for an objective review of competency for our field the year before Proposition 36 was passed by the voters.”
Daniels was accompanied by CAADAC Executive Director, Rick Sautter and Legislative Coordinator, Sherry Daley, who had been highly involved in CAADAC’s original meetings with the Department on licensure. “Back then Sherry Mehl was a divining rod in a very controversial debate over standards,” said Daley. “Today she remains a great resource in helping this profession to legitimize itself with consumers.”
When CAADAC first introduced its licensure bill it was designed to license everyone at several different levels. The complexity of this approach, combined with the untested and non-verifiable ways in which some certifying organizations were approving credentials, made the question of licensure intangible for state regulators like Mehl. “We were trying to define groups of people and sets of skills that had no definition,” explained Daniels. “This precipitated the whole issue of an occupational analysis that would objectively quantify the components of licensure.”
Because a wide array of professionals with varying skill levels was to be included in the original licensure concept, Mehl insisted that her department could not take a favorable position on the idea unless an occupational analysis was conducted.
The CAADAC contingent visited Mehl to discuss the necessity of the occupational analysis and how to fund it now that the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs has finished its regulatory framework on the issue. “Although the regulations are inadequate with regard to consumer protection, they did result in one positive outcome for our profession…” explained Daniels at the meeting. “...they did not establish a standard for the field.”
CAADAC’s new licensure proposal will focus on CAADAC’s well-established standard and will exempt from its requirements anyone working in a facility licensed or certified by ADP. “To our relief, Mehl suggested that we go forward without the occupational analysis, a major hurdle,” said Daniels.
Because the bill will be much more narrow in focus and will pertain to a group that has already gone through an occupational analysis-type review by the International Certification and Reciprocity Consortium (ICRC), the need to study varying standards is no longer a priority. “This is terrific news,” said Daley. “By limiting the issue to a smaller and known group of professionals we can actually show objective and scientific answers to the questions that lawmakers and administrators have been asking.”
Licensure Concerns Presented to Department of Consumer Affairs — Occupational Analysis No Longer a Requirement
Excerpt from FREEDOM July-August 2005
In May the California Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors (CAADAC) met with Department of Consumer Affairs Chief Deputy Director, Sherry Mehl, to discuss options for bringing professional counselors under the Department’s review. “The Department of Consumer Affairs is where professionals are regulated and that is where we have to start,” explained CAADAC President, Warren Daniels. “Sherry Mehl is the former Executive Director of the Board of Behavioral Science and was instrumental in pushing for an objective review of competency for our field the year before Proposition 36 was passed by the voters.”
Daniels was accompanied by CAADAC Executive Director, Rick Sautter and Legislative Coordinator, Sherry Daley, who had been highly involved in CAADAC’s original meetings with the Department on licensure. “Back then Sherry Mehl was a divining rod in a very controversial debate over standards,” said Daley. “Today she remains a great resource in helping this profession to legitimize itself with consumers.”
When CAADAC first introduced its licensure bill it was designed to license everyone at several different levels. The complexity of this approach, combined with the untested and non-verifiable ways in which some certifying organizations were approving credentials, made the question of licensure intangible for state regulators like Mehl. “We were trying to define groups of people and sets of skills that had no definition,” explained Daniels. “This precipitated the whole issue of an occupational analysis that would objectively quantify the components of licensure.”
Because a wide array of professionals with varying skill levels was to be included in the original licensure concept, Mehl insisted that her department could not take a favorable position on the idea unless an occupational analysis was conducted.
The CAADAC contingent visited Mehl to discuss the necessity of the occupational analysis and how to fund it now that the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs has finished its regulatory framework on the issue. “Although the regulations are inadequate with regard to consumer protection, they did result in one positive outcome for our profession…” explained Daniels at the meeting. “...they did not establish a standard for the field.”
CAADAC’s new licensure proposal will focus on CAADAC’s well-established standard and will exempt from its requirements anyone working in a facility licensed or certified by ADP. “To our relief, Mehl suggested that we go forward without the occupational analysis, a major hurdle,” said Daniels.
Because the bill will be much more narrow in focus and will pertain to a group that has already gone through an occupational analysis-type review by the International Certification and Reciprocity Consortium (ICRC), the need to study varying standards is no longer a priority. “This is terrific news,” said Daley. “By limiting the issue to a smaller and known group of professionals we can actually show objective and scientific answers to the questions that lawmakers and administrators have been asking.”
Last changed: Apr 06 2007 at 5:39 AM
Back
