2024 Possible LPC Rule Changes
Today was the last day to write to the board regarding possible upcoming rule changes to the professional counselors code in Georgia. The board meeting to discuss is August 11th. Link below to the proposed rule changes. I’ve also posted one letter I know of that was sent to the board and was circulated on Georgia Therapist Network Listserv.
One Letter to the Board:
Hi Everyone,
There have been some exchanges on the GTN listserv about the new Composite Board Rules that affect associate-level counselors. There are several that affect SWs as well, but they aren't addressed here.
Anyway, there are hundreds of us who are very concerned on multiple levels, and there is only a very brief period to comment. Apparently, we need to submit a letter in writing to the Board by 8/4, and there is a Zoom meeting on August 11th we may attend. I strongly encourage you to do both if you can.
The rules create a hardship for counselors pursuing directed experience (DE) and supervision toward licensure as well as small practices who provide the DE. Additionally, these rules will harm our clients by not allowing affordable care to the public when we are already in a mental health crisis in Georgia. These changes will affect lower socioeconomic communities and practice owners that can't afford to pay for what they are asking, all of which I believe is a social justice issue.
If you feel so inclined to overnight a letter, I've edited a final version of a template letter that was initiated by Nick Marko on GTN, edited by Emily Shupert, and expanded upon by Terri Abraham. There are other issues with the hours requirement, but this is a start in us standing up for ourselves and the public.
Since I know a lot of you don't open attachments or know how to (including me ;-), I'm cutting and pasting it here.
Please tailor it to what you feel is appropriate, and please spread the word.
Thank you,
Becky
Insert Your Letterhead Here
August 2, 2023
Gabriel Sterling
Professional Licensing Boards Division
The Georgia Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers, and Marriage& Family Therapists
237 Coliseum Drive
Macon, Georgia 31217
Dear Mr. Sterling,
Please reconsider the proposed rules and definitions regarding Director and Direction,Supervisor and Supervision, and Work Site Rules 135-5-.02 and 135-5.-01. I believe that these changes will not only harm small businesses (therapy practices), but they will also harm the public by creating fewer places to receive outpatient services. My understanding is that the Composite Board is there to protect the public, and I think there are other ways to do so and still achieve the goals you were hoping to achieve.
Regarding the Definitions of Director/Direction and Supervisor/Supervision: Definitions (a) 3.(i) and (a) 6.(i)
The changes to these definitions can create a potential financial hardship for associate-level counselors, especially for those working in a small private practice, and it creates a big liabilityrisk for owners of private practices.
First, many private practice owners provide clinical supervision to their associates at little to no cost to the associate. If the associate has to find outside supervision, the cost of supervision will create financial hardship for them.
Second, the rules (a) 3. state that the Director, “...has the ultimate responsibility for assuringthe quality of all services provided…” It appears you are asking the Director to hold allresponsibility and liability for client care while someone else will be overseeing that carewithout the Director’s input. This can put the whole organization at risk.
As the owner of a small private practice, the way I ensure the quality of services is by meeting with my associate-level staff in supervision to review their client care through case presentations. This gives me the opportunity to evaluate and provide oversight of the development of their clinical and ethical skills. This is how I determine client assignments andknow when an associate is ready for more complex cases.
I know the Board wants Directors to be more involved in client assignments, and supervision is the best possible way to do so. If associates seek supervision from an independentsupervisor, it will be difficult for the Director to assess the development of that Associate.
Additionally, if we were to hire a qualified supervisor on staff to provide supervision, we arestill creating a dual relationship as the Supervisor still reports to the Director.
Third, many associates work as independent contractors (ICs). Under tax law, a practice owner cannot require an IC to attend staff meetings without paying them, and I can assure you that ICs do not want to spend their time in non-billable activities. So, we would either have to start paying ICs to attend staff meetings to review their cases (duplicating the work of asupervisor and creating a financial hardship on the organization), and we risk a ruling from the IRS that we are misclassifying staff (creating a potentially catastrophic financial hardship on the organization).
Fourth, for those of us that work in specific specialty areas such as CBT (ERP), DBT, Systemicand Generational Trauma, Religion, Perinatal issues, etc., this will very clearly limit the opportunities for supervisees to find and afford quality supervision.
Fifth, Rule (a) 3.(ii) states that “Directors shall not provide direction to family members, norshall they provide direction to any practitioner with whom they have a boundary conflict or conflict of interest, including a financial interest and/or familial relationship,” and
I have a few comments about this statement:
1. Owners of a private practice have a financial interest in the business and any work performed in their offices. This rule implies an owner can no longer serve as Directorand, based on the issues discussed above, Supervisor. Would they now have to hire both a Director and Supervisor to work in their organizations? This is impractical and unfeasible.
2. It appears the Board is making it near-impossible for associate-level counselors towork in a private practice (definitely not a smaller one). This will create a real hardshipfor the profession and the public as Associates will now have a smaller pool oflocations where they can gain experience and the public will have few options to seek treatment. We are already in a mental health crisis, and this will exacerbate that situation.
3. It also will make it near-impossible for a private group practice to stay in business, as evidenced by the fact that in the last four years, I have had only two fully-licensedcounselors respond to a job ad.
Sixth, and I really don’t have a dog in this fight, I understand the Board’s concern for an associate-level therapist trying to get around the rules to work in their own private practice. But, as a therapist with a grown child, I could see an older practitioner wanting to bring theirchild into the family business, and this rule would prevent that from happening.
Again, I don’t want to see an Associate come out of school and open their own office with a spouse or parent or sibling as the “Director” on record, but this is another example of the Board trying to fix a problem without allowing for ethical variations.
You could change the wording to something like “Associates may not work in an organization whose Director is a family member unless that organization has been in existence for at leastfive years prior to the Associate’s employment,” or even “except under special circumstances requiring Board approval.”
Regarding the Definition of Directed Work Experience
The definitions of Directed Work Experience (DWE) Rule (a) 7.(xi) (III) states that anacceptable work site:
“...shall employ at least one licensed Professional Counselor, Clinical Social Worker, Marriage and Family Therapist, Psychologist, or Psychiatrist and should have measurable detailed documentation for every practitioner, to include a signed contractual agreement thatoutlines the job description, office hours, performance review procedures and dismissal policies.”
My concerns are as follows:
• Many of us gained hours working for small non-profits where there was a Directorbut no other fully-licensed person employed. Rules have changed since then, but thiseliminates the possibility for people in lower socioeconomic communities to receive help. I feel this is a social justice issue and needs to be considered.
• Many organizations have staff who are ICs. No one meets the definition of“employed” except the owner, whose role in the organization is now under question.
• According to the IRS, “The general rule is that an individual is an independentcontractor if the payer has the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not what will be done and how it will be done.” If our contracts define the hours an IC can work, we can be in danger of an IRS ruling that we are misclassifying our staff.
• The premise of requiring APCs to be paid via W2 was addressed nearly 10 years ago, and at least one lawsuit was filed regarding this. It seems the Board is putting us back into the position of requiring W2 employment.
I realize there are some Directors who also serve as Supervisors who are unethical and even abusive. I am also aware of some unethical Directors and unethical Supervisors working independently. It is my belief if someone abuses ethical boundaries, they will continue to do so and find a way around the rules. This change will negatively impact only those of us followingthe rules and are diligent about staying within ethical boundaries.
Thank you for your time in reviewing this letter and consideration.
Sincerely,
Your name & credentials
Contact information
--
Becky Beaton-York, PhD
Founder & Director of The Knowledge Tree
