professional issues

Goals and Tasks ofCounselor Licensing Boards

ALAN DAVIS

DANIEL YAZAK

Ratings of actual and ideal goals and tasks of counselor licensing boards were ob­talned. Board members rated public protection goals as most frequently accomplishedand public protection tasks as most significant.

Counseling has become the most recent member of the self­regulating professions (Cottone, 1985). Beginning in the early 1970s,the American Counseling Association (ACA), working with statechapter committees, began a sustained nationwide effort to estab­lish and strengthen counselor licensing boards (McFadden &Brooks, Jr., 1983). The ensuing two decades have witnessed anestablishment phase, during which legislative activity has createdlicensing boards (some states have registries or certificates ratherthan licenses) in 41 states and in the District of Columbia. Duelargely to the influenceof model legislation provided by ACA, stateshave invested licensing boards with broad powers to issue creden­tials to counselors and to regulate professional practice. Thedeclared intent of this activity was to bring about vast changes inthe field of counseling (Sweeney & Sturdevant, 1974). The estab­lishment ofboards, in 84% of the states, with statutory' authority toconfer credentials. define ethical practice, and impose disciplinary'penalties, marks an important point of transition in the history' ofcounseling.

Alan Davis is Wl associate professor and Daniel Yazak is the department chair. bothin the Department ofCoWlSeUng and HumWl Services at Montana State University­Billings. Fundingfor this study was provided through agrantjrom the AssociationforCounselorEducation and Supervision. Correspondence regarding this article should besent to Alan Davis. Department ofCoWlSeling and Human Services. S. E. 229. 1500 N.30. MontWla State University-Billings. Billings. MT 5910 1-0298.

308 COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION I JUNE 1996 I VOL. 35

From the beginning. it was clear that licensing boards wereexpected to serve many purposes. Some counselors believed that byestablishing rigorous standards of training and supervision. licens­ing boards would generally serve the long-range interests of con­sumers and thereby contribute positively to the human condition(Sweeney. 1978). Others viewed protection of the public from un­ethical or incompetent practice as being the primary potentialbenefit of regulation (Arbuckle. 1977; Carroll. Griggs. & Halligan.1977). Eligibility for third-party payment was also seen as a possibleadvantage of licensure (Carroll. Griggs. & Halligan. 1977; Hardy.Luck. & Chandler. 1982). Still others saw licensing boards asnecessary to protect counselors from cease and desist orders is­sued by state psychology boards and to provide counselors withprivileged communication status under the law (Cottingham. 1978;Cottingham & Warner. Jr.• 1978; Cottone. Pullen. & Wilson. 1983;Forster. 1977; Gazda. 1977). Predictions about the effects oflicens­Ing boards were not uniformly positive. Some authors expressedthe belief that occupational licensing boards are devices of self­serving guilds. seeking to limit the number of practitioners andincrease the financial status of those already licensed (Lunch.1978; Schneider. 1987).

The majority of licensing boards have existed for at least 5 years(Virginia was the first state to establish a licensing board in 1976)and have become a strong influence on counseling in their respec­tive states. Recent research suggests opinions concerning the impactof licensing boards. In a recent SUIVey of counselors. educators.and legislators in Ohio. Davis. Witmer. and Navin (1990) found that"TIle majority of the respondents felt that the licensure law hasimproved the credibility of the profession and. perhaps more impor­tantly. provided greater protection to those who seek counselingassistance" (p. 44).

Although the Davis et al. (1990) findings are informative. otherquestions have remained unanswered. Despite many articles describ­ing potential benefits of licensing boards. there remains consider­able ambiguity concerning the goals licensing board membersthink they are accomplishing and the importance they place onspecific tasks. Additionally. it has not been determined how closelythe actual goals and tasks of licensing boards resemble the goalsand tasks that board members consider ideal. Having come intoexistence through the efforts of state counseling associations.licensing boards have been given a regulatory mission that isdistinct from the advocacy role of state associations. It is possiblethat in some cases relationships between licensing boards andstate associations could have become distant or even strained.Presumably. board members are in a unique position to develop

COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION I JUNE 1996 I VOL. 35 309

insights concerning the relationship between these groups. How­ever. until now. it has not been clear whether board members haveformed views regarding the relationship between licensing boardsand state chapters of professional counseling organizations.

Historically. survey studies of roles and functions have providedan important contribution to the developing professional status ofcounseling by offering a means for the profession to define itself(Emener & Rubin. 1980; Matkin. 1983). This study was undertakento obtain a sample of the views that board members have developedthus far concerning the goals and tasks of licensing boards. and toidentify suggestions for improvement of the relationship betweenlicensing boards and state counseling associations. The researchquestions forming the purposes of this study were as follows:

1. To what extent do board members perceive that licensingboards are actually accomplishing selected goals. and does theperception of actual accomplishment differ from that whichboard members consider ideal?

2. What do members of counselor licensing boards think aboutthe importance that is actually being placed on specific tasks.and does the perception of importance of the actual task differfrom what the board members consider ideal?

3. What suggestions do board members have regarding improve­ment of relations between counselor licensingboards and statecounseling associations?

METHOD

Participants

A sample of 237 licensing board members from states currentlyissuing licenses. certification. or registry to counselors wasprovided by 37 boards that responded to written and telephonerequests for names and mailing addresses. Questionnaires weremailed to board members (including public members) unless theywere identified as representing a profession other than counseling.Of the questionnaires mailed. 124 were returned from licensingboard members in usable condition for a 52% response rate. Thisresponse rate is within the range of similar studies reported byWeathers. Furlong. and Solorzano (1993). Of the respondents. 46%were women and 54% were men. The median age was 52 years. Forethnicity, 4% of respondents reported that they were AfricanAmerican•.8% Asian. 1.6% Hispanic. 88.7% Caucasian. and 2.4%American Indian. Other ethnicity was reported by 2.4% of therespondents. Regarding work setting. 28.2% of the respondents

310 COUNSEWR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION / JUNE 1996 / VOL. 35

reported a college or university. 12.9016 mental health organization..8%a rehabilitation agency. 9.7% a school, and 31.5% private practice.Other work settings were reported by 16.9% of the respondents.

To determine the representativeness of the results. we comparedgender demographics of the respondents with those of the samplegroup and found that they were not significantly different (X2 =.441.ns). Responses were received from every geographic region of thecountry.

Instrument

We developed a five-part instrument to address the three researchquestions that formed the basis of the study. This instrument wasformatted to provide demographic information (Part 1). rankingspertaining to research questions (parts 2-4). and open-ended opinions(Part 5). Demographic information was requested according to thecurrent U.S. Bureau of Census definitions.

Part 1 reviewed the role of a public member on the state licensingboard. Part 2 allowed respondents an opportunity to indicate theirviews concerning the adequacy of resources a state licensing boardneeded to function and to meet the objectives. Board tasks werereviewed in Part 3. where differences between actual and idealperceptions of the importance of board tasks were noted by usingLikert-style five-category rating scales. Ratings options includeddk = don't know, 1 = not signfficant. 2 = slightly significant, 3 =significant, 4 = highly signfficant. 5 =most signfficant. Similarly.understanding of actual and ideal goals of a counselor licensingboard were measured in Part 4. Participants were asked to rateaccomplishment of goals in the actual and ideal sense by using athree-option ordinal scale. Ratings options included dk = don'tknow, 1 =not accomplished. 2 =accomplished sometimes, 3 =alwaysaccomplished. A "don't know" section was included in Parts 3 and 4to distinguish between informed and uninformed responses. Finally.Part 5 allowed respondents an opportunity to indicate theiropinions as to how the state licensing board and the state counsel­ing association could best work together on issues of mutualconcern.

To pretest the instrument for face validity. ease of use. and timetaken to complete. 11 practicing counselors were asked to reviewthe questions. Based on the information provided by them. theinstrument was redesigned for ease of administration. an averageadministration time was computed, and an open-ended opinionsection was added. The tasks of the licensing board membersconsisted of 16 items selected from board manuals published in thetwo most populous states (New York State Education Department.

COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION I JUNE 1996 I VOL. 35 311

1990; State of California Department of Consumer Affairs; 1990).Seven items concerning goals of licensing boards were obtainedfrom selected early articles calling for the creation of licensingboards (Arbuckle. 1977; Carroll. Griggs. & Halligan. 1977; Cottin­gham. 1978; Cottingham & Warner. Jr.. 1978; Cottone. Pullen. &Wilson. 1983; Forster. 1977; Gazda. 1977; Hardy. Luck. & Chandler.1982; Lunch. 1978; Schneider. 1987).

DataAnalysis

T tests were conducted to determine whether differences existedbetween respondent's actual and ideal ratings of goals and tasks.To minimize the chance of a Type 1 error. the alpha was set atp < .001. Ott's (1993) procedure was used to determine the experi­ment-wise chance of Type 1 error at p < .02 for the 16 independentcontrasts of actual and ideal ratings of tasks.

RESULTS

Goals

Table 1 reports the mean ratings of actual and ideal goals ofcounselor licensing boards. Goals that related to ethics and qualityof counseling and human improvement received the highest meanratings for estimated frequency of accomplishment. whereas goalsthat focused on financial gain and restriction of competition receivedlower ratings. Ttests of the seven comparisons between respondent'sassessments of the actual and ideal goals of licensing boards resultedin significant differences in each case except item 3 (to restrict thenumber of people entering the counseling profession). Ideal meanswere greater than actual means for all seven comparisons.

Tasks

Actual and ideal ratings of the tasks of counselor licensing boardsare presented in Table 2. The tasks of determining appropriatedisciplinary actions. investigation of ethics complaints. and reviewof applications for licensure received the highest mean ratings interms of actual importance. whereas the tasks that focused oninformation exchange and other professional issues received lesserratings. T tests of the 16 comparisons between respondent's as­sessments of the actual and ideal importance of tasks of licensingboards resulted in significant differences in 10 comparisons. in­cluding (a) evaluation of entry standards. (b) responding to requests

312 COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION I JUNE 1996 I VOL. 35

TABLE 1

Licensing Board Respondents' Ratings of the Goalsof CounselorLicensing Boards Rank Ordered by Actual Means

Actual IdealItem ", SO ", SO t df

To protect the public from 2.38 .58 2.95 .25 -11.05" 121unprofessional practice

To improve the quality of professional 2.27 .55 2.90 .35 -12.02" 117counseling in the state

To improve the human condition 1.95 .51 2.55 .68 -10.25" 92

To restrict the number of people 1.46 .62 1.57 .79 -01.99 92entering the counseling profession

To secure third party payment 1.44 .65 1.99 .89 -06.99" 102eligibility for counselors

To strengthen employment security 1.38 .60 1.69 .84 -04.33" 102for professional counselors

To improve the economic position of 1.19 .47 1.46 .76 -04.27* 98counselors who are already licensed

Note. Ratings are based on a three-option ordinal scale: dk = don't know, 1 = notaccomplished, 2 = accomplishedsometimes, 3 = always accomplished.·P< .001.

for Information by the public. (c) review of supervisor qualifications.(d) exchange of Information with counseling organizations. (e) pre­sentation of Information to interested groups. (t) review of continuingeducation, (g) review and comment on pending legislation. (h) re­view of scope of practice issues with allied boards. (i) advising otheragencies. and OJ examination of content and quality of graduateprograms. Ideal means were greater than actual means for all 16comparisons.

Suggestions

Of the respondents. 77 added written suggestions concerningmethods to improve relations between licensing boards and statechapters of counseling associations. Suggestions included (a) regularmeetings between the licensing board and the executive board ofthe state association to share infonnation and concerns. (b) aregular column in the state counseling newsletter in which thelicensing board disseminates Information on a wide range of issues,(c) holding licensing board meetings in different locations to in-

COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION / JUNE 1996 / VOL. 35 313

TABLE 2

Licensing Board Members' Ratings of theTasksof CounselorLicensing Boards Rank Ordered by Actual Means

Actual IdealItem M SO M SO t df

Determine appropriate 4.38 0.92 4.60 0.61 -3.69 120disciplinary actions in responseto individual ethics violations

Investigate complaints 4.24 1.27 4.43 1.18 -2.98 120concerning unethical orillegal practice

Review individual applications 4.11 1.29 4.09 1.29 0.52 120for licensure

Review and evaluate practice 3.76 1.07 4.16 0.98 -5.69* 118entry standards

Respond to public requests 3.57 1.33 3.91 1.15 -4.91* 120for information

Review the qualifications of 3.51 1.32 4.21 0.88 -7.30* 119counselor supervisors

Participate in lawsuits and legal 3.34 1.35 3.48 1.26 -2.13 113challenges resulting fromboard actions

Exchange information with local, 3.29 1.19 3.85 0.98 -6.26* 119state, and national counselingorganizations

Present licensure, practice, or 3.26 1.29 3.82 1.04 -7.00* 122discipline information tointerested groups

Review continuing education of 3.23 1.56 3.73 1.36 -5.04* 117individual licensure renewalapplications

Review and comment on bills 3.21 1.32 3.72 1.21 -5.29* 119considered by the statelegislature

Review scope of practice issues 3.04 1.34 3.84 1.01 -7.71* 120with allied professionallicensing boards

Provide advice, information, and 2.87 1.34 3.49 1.16 -6.70* 114assistance to othergovernment agencies

Examine content and quality of 2.85 1.31 3.39 1.24 -6.91* 119graduate counselor educationprograms

Administerlicensure examinations 2.72 1.71 2.80 1.69 -129 114Prepare budgetary reports and 2.51 1.38 2.80 1.36 -3.35 117

requests

Note.Ratings are based on Likert-style five-category scale: dk .. don'tknow,1 .. notsignificant,2 .. slightiysignificant,3 .. significant, 4 .. highlysignificant, 5 .. mostsignificant."p « .001.

314 COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION I JUNE 1996 I VOL. 35

crease the opportunity for counselors in remote areas to attendpublic sessions. (d) appointing liaisons or ex-officio members as­signed to attend meetings of the licensing board and executiveboard of the state counseling association on a regular basis. (e)joint sponsorship of ethical and legal issues seminars. (t) jointsponsorship of collaborative research and evaluation projects.

DISCUSSION

The past two decades have witnessed a sustained effort to establishcounselor licensing boards throughout the nation. Due largely tothe activities of the ACA. boards now exist in all but nine states(Morrissey. 1995). As the establishment phase draws to a close. itis important to understand how board members view the goals andthe tasks of licensing boards and to recognize the board members'wishes and suggestions for change.

Goals

This study was undertaken. in part. to determine board memberperceptions of the actual and ideal goals of counselor licensingboards. Protection of the public from unprofessional practicereceived the highest mean ratings in terms of perceived actualaccomplishment. Improvement of professional counseling in thestate received the second highest mean rating. and improvement ofthe human condition received third highest rating in terms ofperceived actual accomplishment. Note that protection of the publicand improvement of counseling also received the highest ratings asideal goals. indicating that board members view these objectives asthe defining purpose of counselor licensing boards (Neukruo. Healy.& Herlihy. 1992). The central view seems to have changed littlesince Arbuckle (1977) wrote. "Most counselors generally accept theconcept of licensing when its basic purpose is described as themaintenance and control of the professional competence and per­sonal ethics and behavior of members of the profession" (p. 581).

Respondents did not seem to feel that counselor licensing boardswere pursuing self-promotion goals. Self-promotion by the profes­sion in the form of restriction of the number of people entering thecounseling profession. strengthening employment security. andimprovement of the economic position of licensed counselors. wasrated less frequently accomplished than public protection goals.Securing third-party payment eligibility received the fourth highestideal rating. It may be the case that some board members regardeligibility for third-party payment for licensed counselors. at leastpartially. as a public protection issue. This view was expressed by

COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION I JUNE 1996 I VOL. 35 315

one respondent who wrote. "Impressing on the legislature the needfor third-party billing for counselors would result in more affor­dable mental health care for the poor and lower-middle income ofthe state. This would include the nearly always overlooked ruralareas."

Ideal means for goal accomplishment were significantly higherthan actual means in six of the seven comparisons. The rank orderingof means for actual and ideal goals was highly similar. suggestingthat respondents desired a general increase in board effectivenessrather than a change in priorities. The differences in means suggestthat the goals of protection of the public from unprofessionalpractice. improvement of professional counseling in the state. andimprovement of the human condition are viewed by respondents asbeing actually accomplished sometimes. whereas they should(ideally) be accomplished always. For the goals of securing thirdparty payment for licensees. strengthening employment security forlicensees. and improving the economic position of licensed coun­selors. respondents seemed to think that these goals were generallynot accomplished but should be accomplished sometimes.

Tasks

A second purpose of this study was to determine on which tasksboard members think the actual importance is placed and whatlevel of importance would be considered ideal. The tasks of deter­mining appropriate disciplinary actions. investigating ethics com­plaints. and reviewing applications for licensure received thehighest mean ratings. These findings are consistent with the pre­viously mentioned view concerning the goals of counselor licensingboards and indicate that respondents placed the greatest impor­tance on specific tasks that support the public protection role.

Respondents gave relatively high ideal ratings to information­related tasks. Ratings indicated that licensing board memberswould prefer to see more importance placed on the tasks of ex­changing information with local. state. and national counselingorganizations. presenting information to interested groups. provid­ing advice and information to other government agencies. andresponding to public requests for information. All ideal means forthese tasks were significantly greater than the actual means.

It seems that respondents would like to see increased importanceplaced on the tasks of reviewing and commenting on pendinglegislation. reviewing scope of practice issues with allied profes­sional licensing boards. and examining the content and quality ofgraduate counselor education programs. A large discrepancy wasobserved between the relatively high ideal rating of the task of

316 COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION / JUNE 1996 / VOL. 35

reviewing the quallfications of counselor supervisors. as comparedwith the significantly lower actual rating. This finding is notewor­thy. given the importance of counselor supervision in promotingand ensuring the quality of counseling practice (Borders & Cashwell.1992).

Note that means for participation in law suits and legal challen­ges resulting from board actions ranked 13th ideally but 7th interms of actual importance. It seems that board members believethat more relative importance is placed on legal matters than theideal priorities suggest.

Because these data represent a new area of inquiry. the reader iscautioned to refrain from generalization until the reliability of thesefindings can be detennined through replication and cross-validation(Dillman. 1982). Future research should explore the possible in­fluence of time and resource constraints on limiting the ability ofboards to accomplish goals and influencing the importance thatboard members place on specific tasks.

Suggestions

Respondents felt that much can be done to improve relationsbetween counselor licensing boards and state chapters of profes­sional organizations. Generally. the written comments support theview that although licensing boards have a public protection roleand that state counseling associations have a professional ad­vocacy role. the purposes are not mutually exclusive and the twogroups should not be adversarial. Although it was frequently statedthat licensing boards should be careful to avoid conflicts of interest.suggestions tended to indicate that respondents viewed com­munication and collaboration as desirable and necessary. The wordcommunication was used in 20 of the written suggestions. andsuggestions emphasized the importance of regular meetings be­tween members of licensing boards and officers of state chapters ofcounseling associations. Research studies can provide an empiricalbasis for collaborative relations between boards and other groups(Marino. 1995).

REFERENCESArbuckle. D. S. (1977). Counselor licensure: To be or not to be. the Personnel and

GuidanceJoumal. 55. 581-585.Borders. L. D. & Cashwell. C. S. (1992). Supervision regulations in counselor

licensure legislation. Counselor Education and Superoision, 31. 208-218.Carroll. M. R.. Griggs. S .. & Halligan. F. (1977). The licensure issue: How real is It?

Tne Personnel and GuidanceJoumal. 55. 577-580.

COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION / JUNE 1996 / VOL. 35 317

Cottingham. H. F. (1978). Impelling forces for counselor licensure: A capsule sum­mary, The &hool Counselor; 25. 33~334.

Cottingham. H. F.• & Warner. Jr.. R W. (1978). APGA and counselor licensure: Astatus report. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 56. 604-607.

Cottone. R R (1985). The need for counselor licensure: A rehabilitation counselingperspective. Journal ofCOWlSeling and Development. 63. 625-629.

Cottone. R. R.. Pullen. J. R.. & Wilson. W. C. (1983). Counselor licensure. conflen­ttallty, and privileged communication: Implications for private practice inrehabllitatlon. Journal ofApplied RehabUitation CoWlSeling. 14(2). 6-8.

Davis. T .. Witmer. J. M.• & Navin. S. (1990). Assessing the Impact of counselorlicensure in Ohio as perceived by counselors. counselor educators. and legis­lators. CoWlSelor Education and Superoision. 30.37-47.

Dillman. D. A (1982). MaUand telephonesuroeys. New York: Wiley.Emener, W. G.. & Rubin. S. E. (1980). Rehabllitatlon counselor roles and functions

and sources of role strain. Journal ofApplied RehabUitation CoWlSeling. 11(2).57-69.

Forster. J. R (1977). What shall we do about credential1ng? The Personnel andGuidanceJournal, 55. 573-576.

Gazda. G. M. (1977). Ucensure/cert1ficatlon for counseling psychologists and coun­selors. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 55(10). 70.

Hardy. R. E.• Luck. R. S.. & Chandler. A L. (1982). Ucensure of rehabilitationcounselors and related issues: Results of a national survey. RehabUitationCoWlSeling Bulletin, 25. 157-161.

Lunch. M. (1978. October). Public accountabllity for the professions. ProfessionalEngineer. 16-18.

Marino. T. W. (1995). Psychologists propose restrictions to limit counselors' scope ofpractice. CoWlSeling Today. 37{9). 1.

Matkin. R E. (1983). The roles and functions ofrehabilitation specialists in the privatesector. Journal ofApplied RehabUitation CoWlSeling. 14( 1). 14-27.

McFadden. J .. & Brooks. Jr.. D.K. (1983). CoWlSelor licensure action packetAlexandria. VA: American Association for Counseling and Development.

Morrissey. M. (1995). Persistence and patience named as keys to achieving licensure.CoWlSeling Today. 37{9). 16-19.

Neukruo, E. S .• Healy. M.• & Herlihy. B. (1992). Ethical practices of licensedprofessional counselors: An updated survey of state licensing boards. CoWlSelorEducation and Supervision. 32. 1~141.

New York State Education Department. (1990). Boards for the professions: A state­ment ofbackgrolUld and guidelines. Albany. NY: Office of the Professions.

Ott. R L. (1993). An introdudion to statistical methods and data analysis. Belmont.CA: Duxbury Press.

Schneider. S. K. (1987). Influence on state professional licensure policy. PublicAdministration Review. 44/5). 479-484.

State of California Department of Consumer Affairs. (1990). Laws and regulationsrelating to the practice ofmarriage. family and child coWlSeling. licensed clinicalsocial work. and educationalpsychology. Sacramento: Board of Behavioral ScienceExaminers.

Sweeney. T. J. (1978). Counselor credentlaling. Viewpoints in Teaching andLeamlng.54(1).56-63.

Sweeney. T. J .. & Sturdevant. AD. (1974). Ucensure in the helping professions:Anatomy of an Issue. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 52. 575-580.

Weathers. P. L.• Furlong. M. J .• & Solorzano, D. (1993). Mall survey research incounseling psychology. Journal ofCoWlSeling Psychology. 40.238-244.

318 COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION / JUNE 1996 / VOL. 35