CORE Response to 20/20
Frank Lane, Ph.D., CRC, LCPC
Executive Director
Tom Evenson, Ph.D., CRC
President
Patricia Nunez, M.S., CRC
Vice President
10/17/2012
Introduction
 History
 Proposal
 Introduction
 IOM Recommendation
 Parity
 General Counselor Licensure Laws
 2007 Merger Decision
 Accreditation in other Professions
History

On March 22, 2012 in San Francisco, CA, the 20/20 educational requirements
workgroup had submitted a proposal to all delegates that they adopt
language for licensure portability that included CACREP-only language.

The 20/20 delegates recognized CORE and would not entertain the
proposal, at that time.

The delegates voted to “endorse the concept of a single educational
accreditation body” because they believe it is a clear benefit to the
counseling profession.

The Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) submitted a proposal to the
20/20 delegates to offer an innovative model for a structure that can
facilitate 20/20’s collective efforts to effectively unify the profession.

This proposal was proposed by the CORE Board at its annual meeting in July
2012.
20/20
 Born in 2005, due to concern about lack of
unity within the counseling profession
leading to multiple variations in state
licensing titles and regulations, hampering
development and implementation of AASCB
portability plan.
 Co Sponsored by ACA and AASCB
 Consensus model
 Principles for Unifying and Strengthening the
Profession approved by 97% of participating
organizations
Principles for Unifying and
Strengthening the Profession
 Sharing a common professional identity is critical for counselors
 Presenting ourselves as a unified profession has multiple benefits
 Working together to improve the public perception of counseling
and to advocate for professional issues will strengthen the
profession.
 Creating a portability system for licensure will benefit counselors
and strengthen the counseling profession.
 Expanding and promoting our research base is essential to the
efficacy of professional counselors and to the public perception
of the profession.
 Focusing on students and prospective students is necessary to
ensure the ongoing health of the counseling profession.
 Promoting client welfare and advocating for the populations we
serve is a primary focus of the counseling profession.
Proposal

The CORE Board proposes a consortium model for counseling
accreditation and unification as the organizational paradigm
consistent with the 20/20 delegation’s 3/22/12 endorsement.

CORE views a consortium model as an association of two or more
accreditation organizations with the objective of participating in
accreditation activities and coordinating each organization’s resources
to achieve the goal of licensure portability.

CORE’s proposal directly supports the vision for generic counseling and
the counseling specializations.

The principles of unification, through this consortium model, will
strengthen the counseling profession and advances 20/20’s principles.

A consortium model also equalizes power differentials so that those
involved in a relationship each has its voice heard and is not
dominated by one of the members within that relationship.
Proposal
 A consortium of accreditation bodies will support the principles
of the 20/20 delegates in that it would:
 present us as having a common professional identity (Principle





#1);
demonstrate our diverse and unified profession (Principle #2);
work together to improve the public perception of counseling
(Principle #3);
create a portability system that will benefit counselors (Principle
#4) because it will ensure that all counselors graduating from an
accredited program can get licensed in all 50 states, the US
Territories and Commonwealths;
focus on students and prospective students (Principle #6); and
promote client welfare and advocate for the populations by
ensuring that qualified, trained counselors serve all individuals,
from all backgrounds, sexual orientation, cultures and abilities
(Principle #7).
IOM Recommendation

CACREP has been recognized in federal legislation over the past three years for mental
health counseling and substance abuse counseling much like rehabilitation counseling
has been recognized in legislation specific to its specialty for nearly 40 years.

CORE believes that the matter of recognition for practice within a specific system (under
TRICARE, for example) and portability of counselor licensure are two very separate issues.

Rehabilitation counselors have long been recognized by the Veterans Administration (VA)
for vocational rehabilitation counseling services to veterans with service-connected
disabilities.

TRICARE and the VA are now recognizing mental health counselors. These and similar
decisions in the rehabilitation counseling and mental health specialties are supplemental
to licensure. They further evaluate the qualifications of licensed counselors for practice in
specific job classifications within the professional counseling occupation, much like board
certifications in the medical profession.

Certification as a Clinical Mental Health Counselor (CMHC), similar to the Certified
Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC) certification, designates a credentialed professional for
practice in a specific specialization.
Parity Resolution
 Original parity motion- 1999
 Parity reaffirmation resolution- 2003
 Original documents can be viewed at
www.arcaweb.org and go to the “Counselor
Parity” tab
Parity Reaffirmation
 ACA reaffirms that preparation of students educated
by both CORE and CACREP accredited programs is
functionally equivalent for purposes of licensure and
further, that NCC’s and CRC’s have met equally
rigorous standards of education and experience in
achieving these credentials. Further, it is the policy of
ACA that the alternate equivalency of CORE and
CRCC to their counseling credentialing counterparts
be given full and proper consideration and voice in
all credentialing, professionalization and advocacy
actions and policy communications taken by ACA.
This position is especially relevant within the context
of ACA’s positions of statutory and regulatory
licensure issues such as recommended examinations,
and educational requirements involved in core
course evaluations, as well as counselor licensure
portability models and policies
unanimously passed March 2003 – ACA Governing Council
Parity

The ACA parity resolution has prompted some to ask “How can the ACA Governing Council establish parity
when the IOM recommended CACREP accreditation over CORE for mental health counseling?”

The recommendation by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to recognize the CACREP standards for mental
health counselors (a specialty practice in the generic field of counseling) will shape the criteria by which a
mental health counselor may practice.

Rehabilitation counseling (a specialty practice) went through a similar process in the early 1970s when its
credentialing bodies began to further define rehabilitation counseling practice. It would have been
inappropriate for CORE to point to the US Department of Education’s Rehabilitation Services Administration
recognition of CORE accredited programs as evidence of superiority when advocating for inclusion in
counselor licensure laws. That misses the point and causes disparity in the power equation.

The same is true of the IOM recommendation to use CACREP mental health standards for a specialty
counselor. Parity Resolution

IOM’s recommendation to use CACREP’s mental health counseling standards is specific to only one
specialty area in counseling, not all specialty areas. Thus, the recommendation to use CACREP’s standards
in this single area should not be blurred with the federal government’s endorsement of CACREP’s standards
across all areas of counseling. This is not reality. Mental health, rehabilitation, school, career, marriage and
family, and transition specializations share a common counselor identity. Parity refers to the core
educational competencies that all counselors share. The chart below compares the CACREP eight
knowledge areas considered to be the foundation for professional counselors. You will notice that the
knowledge areas correspond, almost word for word, with CORE standards. The two knowledge areas under
CORE focus on the specialty of rehabilitation counseling. Therefore, all counselor specializations should be
included in generic counselor licensure. Any proposal for portability of counselor licensure must be on the
common thread – general counselor licensure.
General Counselor Licensure Laws

An analysis of general counselor licensure laws in all 50 states, DC and Puerto Rico
reveals the following:


The Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) is currently mentioned in the licensing laws
of 14 states.
CACREP is mentioned in the laws of 27 states.

These statistics alone do not reflect the path by which graduates of counseling
programs become licensed.

In looking at the 27 states that mention CACREP, it is important to note that this
includes the 14 states that also mention CORE. The remaining 13 state laws that
mention CACREP also include specific language that provides alternative routes to
meet educational requirements such as recognition of regionally accredited
institutions, degree titles, minimum degree hours and course content areas.

The remaining 25 states, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico do not specifically mention an accreditation body by name but rather focus
on the articulation of minimum educational standards.

Graduates of CORE accredited rehabilitation counseling programs currently have
pathways that lead to the possibility of licensure in most of the states and
territories.
2007 Merger Decision
 CORE’s Board decided not to vote on the merger solution in
2007 based on two reasons that still exist today.
 First, the requirements that CACREP accredited programs must
hire only graduates of CACREP accredited doctoral programs
prevent the candidacy of many of the graduates of CORE
programs.
 This marginalizes a specialty area of counseling that draws from
a variety of disciplines (e.g., occupational therapy,
psychology, disability studies) to serve the diverse needs of
people with disabilities.
 We used Beatrice Wright as an example of a faculty member
who would not meet the requirements set forth by CACREP
and it is hard to imgaine rehabilitation counseling without her
unique contributions
 While CORE was informed that CACREP would consider an
extended grandparenting period for CORE programs as
potentially “reasonable,” the grandparenting period would
eventually end. From the Board’s perspective, grandparenting
merely prolongs the inevitable reality.
2007 Merger Decision

The second point concerned the faculty size requirement of the programs.

Currently, CORE accredits 26 programs with two or fewer faculty members. They would be ineligible for
accreditation under the CORE-CACREP merger.

While these two points may seem small to some, they result in a significant impact to the culture of
rehabilitation counseling.

One might say “just have your doctoral programs pursue CACREP accreditation.” While this sounds simple, it
is more difficult to accomplish in practice without having a negative impact on the rehabilitation
counseling culture.

The rehabilitation counseling program at University of Wisconsin at Madison, for example, is titled
rehabilitation psychology. According to CACREP Accreditation Process Policy #4 “Titles may not be used
that have the potential of misrepresentation with regard to CACREP accreditation. Therefore, when an
institution decides to seek CACREP accreditation for one or more graduate degree programs), the
institution must use titles that:


1) clearly identify the programs and degrees as counseling programs and counseling degrees, and

2) accurately reflect the CACREP program area under which accreditation is being sought.” (CACREP
Policy Document, February 2009, revised February 2012, page 3).
CORE believes the potential loss of the program under an alternate accreditation model impacts the
quality of the educators in rehabilitation counseling programs.
Accreditation in other Professions

More than one accrediting body for a major profession is not unique.

At least four other professions have more than one accreditation body.

Audiology programs are accredited by the Accreditation Commission for Audiology Education
(ACAE) and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association’s Council on Academic
Accreditation (ASHA-CAA.).

Nursing programs are accredited by the National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission
(NLNAC) and the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, Commission on Nursing Education
(CCNE). T

Teacher education programs are accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of
Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC), although
these two groups are in the process of merging.

Business programs are accredited by three organizations, the Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB), the American Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP),
and the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE).

The Council Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) recognizes all but one of the accrediting
organizations above, CCNE, which means that CHEA recognizes multiple accrediting
organizations in the business, teaching, and audiology professions included in this example.
Accreditation in other
Professions
 Multiple accrediting bodies within a profession does not
necessarily equate to a lack of a singular professional
identity.
 In conversations with staff from the organizations that
accredit programs for nursing, teaching, and audiology.
 CORE discovered that each organization is responsible
for marketing the accreditation to state licensing
boards.
 Licensing boards are not resistant to the concept and
the professional associations do not become involved in
recognizing one accreditation over another.
20/20 Educational
Requirements

Among the 20/20 delegates, the workgroup on educational standards is comprised of ten
members and chaired by the President and CEO of CACREP, Carol Bobby.

The workgroup has utilized the Delphi method to arrive at a consensus on the educational
standards to recommend adoption to 20/20 delegates. The Delphi method is a powerful tool but,
like all methodologies, it has strengths and limitations.

The Delphi method is well suited to build consensus around a topic by utilizing a series of
questionnaires designed to collect data from a panel of experts. There are, however, potential
limitations, which include unintentionally guiding feedback from the expert panel. Additional
criticism of the Delphi method is that there is a normative influence on the consensus decision by
the group rather than an informational one, which is what is intended by the method.

Put simply, six out of the seven accreditations for specializations within the counseling profession
are sponsored by CACREP. These include addictions, career, clinical mental health, marriage
couple and family, school, student affairs, and college counseling. Only one representative of this
workgroup that we are aware of has a good working knowledge of CORE accreditation. The
workgroup’s consensus and initial recommendation for CACREP accreditation as the model for
licensure can be explained by public compliance, lack of relevant information and lack of
understanding of CORE accreditation.

CORE is concerned that the consensus of the 20/20 workgroup on educational standards may be
unintentionally but inappropriately influenced by the fact that CACREP accreditation is the norm
but not representative of the entire profession.
Summary

We ask that the 20/20 delegates not confuse recognition of CACREP’s standards for
mental health counseling by the IOM and other federal agencies as anything more than
the credentialing of practitioners for this counseling specialization.

We ask the 20/20 delegates to consider a consortium model of accreditation bodies that
support the principles of the 20/20 workgroup.

We ask the 20/20 delegates to recognize that two or more accreditation bodies for a
major profession is not unique. At least four other professions have more than one
accreditation body.

We ask the 20/20 delegates to recognize that the Council on Higher Education
Accreditation (CHEA) recognizes CORE and that CHEA standards require the
accreditation organization to make independent decisions without undue influence from
outside organizations.

We ask the 20/20 delegates to consider the limitations of the Delphi process, and that the
educational requirements workgroup recommendations may be unintentionally, but
inappropriately, influenced by the fact that the CACREP accreditation may become the
de facto norm skewing the group’s results.