PROPOSED REGULATIONS—DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO COMPEL PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATIONS
The BBS has proposed a regulatory change to delegate to the Executive Officer of the BBS the authority to compel therapists to undergo psychiatric evaluations. CAMFT has submitted a letter of opposition to this proposed regulation. These orders are typically issued from the Board, not the Executive Officer, after a factual showing that a licensee is impaired due to mental or physical illness.

The Board states in its Initial Statement of Reasons for the proposed change in regulation that compelling these evaluations is an investigatory function that should not be performed by board members who also serve as judges in the administrative adjudication process. Further, they state, due process requires that the investigatory function and the adjudication function be separate and performed by different parties. It is our belief that the law does not support these premises.

The law allows the Board to revoke or suspend one’s license if the licentiate’s ability to practice safely is impaired by mental illness or physical illness affecting competency. The legislature gave the power to the Board (the licensing agency) to order an examination and to make a determination based upon the outcome of the exam and other evidence. The law expressly authorized the same agency to proceed in the capacities of investigation and adjudication. It is our belief that the law would need to be amended by the legislature in order to allow delegation to the Executive Officer of such a significant power. To vest this power in one person, without any built-in safeguards, seems to us unwarranted and possibly dangerous. Currently, even the Medical Board does not delegate their authority to an Executive Officer; they utilize a panel of the Board to make such decisions.

Additionally, there are technical problems with the Board’s proposal in that their proposed regulation speaks only of psychiatric examinations, and not physical examinations, as the law addresses. Further, the proposed regulation references sections of the licensing law applicable to LCSWs and not LMFTs, yet the intent is to have the regulation applicable to both professions.

In light of CAMFT’s opposition, the request has been made for the Board to withdraw the proposed regulation. Should the Board not withdraw the regulation, we have asked that the matter be heard in a public hearing so that the public has the opportunity to express concern about the proposal.

PROPOSED REGULATIONS—SUPERVISION REQUIREMENTS
The Board has reluctantly agreed to pursue a regulatory change regarding the existing requirement that supervisors are to have seen at least five patients per week out of two of the prior five years. The proposed change will remove the requirement of “five patients per week” and would permit direct supervision to satisfy the requirement, in addition to psychotherapy. The Board has also agreed to pursue a regulatory change to permit a small percentage of the supervision that interns receive to be gained by video-conferencing, a method that would be other than the face-to-face requirement. Such supervision would not be permitted in private practice. These changes will be pursued following the Board’s compilation of the results of a survey about supervision. We will have more information on the specifics as the regulatory proposals unfold. The proposed changes are to be applicable to both MFTs and CSWs.

PROPOSED REGULATIONS—CITING AND FINING OF CONTINUING EDUCATION PROVIDERS
The Board is working on regulations to issue citations and fine continuing educating providers. While the proposed regulatory package has not been noticed and is not yet available for public comment, CAMFT is opposed to the concept.

The BBS is given the power by law to grant, revoke, or deny the right of continuing education providers to offer continuing education. The Board, by law, can revoke a provider’s status or can elect to not renew a provider’s status if it believes the provider is failing to comply with the relevant law and/or regulations. It is our belief the legislature did not grant the Board the power to issue citations to continuing education providers. Providers include, among others, accredited schools, hospitals, governmental entities, professional associations, and of course, licensed professionals. Section 125.9 of the Business and Professions Code gives the Board the authority to cite and fine licensees, so the Board could seek to amend regulations to cite and fine those that it regulates, however, it does not have that authority over entities that it does not regulate, such as the University of Southern California or CAMFT.

Thus, if the Board is to seek the ability to cite and fine continuing education providers, other than licensees, it should first seek legislation. CAMFT, nevertheless, would likely oppose such legislation, as there are innumerable substantive and procedural issues that would be involved if the Board were given this power over those it has not previously had the authority to regulate.

SUPERVISION SURVEY
The BBS reported on the initial results of their supervision survey. The survey has received a respectable response rate, with more responses coming in. Generally speaking, both MFTs and CSWs indicate they have had positive supervision experiences.

PRESENTATION ON THE BOARD’S LICENSING EXAMINATIONS
Linda Hooper, Ph.D., with the Office of Examination Resources (OER), provided a report on the various examinations administered by the BBS. She described the process for the development of the examinations and explained the procedures followed to create, evaluate, and revise the items contained in each test. The exams are, of course, directly related to the occupational analyses. The items are developed by subject matter experts (SMEs), under the guidance of the Office of Examination Resources. OER provides the training in item development and performs the statistical analysis to ascertain whether or not the items perform as intended. The OER also uses SMEs to take the tests and determine the difficulty of the items contained in each test. Based upon these results, the difficulty level of the test is determined and the pass point is established. While the exams meet the standards established by normal testing criteria, we continue to have concerns about the fluctuations in pass rates from exam to exam, and whether or not the WCV exam is an appropriate determinant of minimum competency to enter the profession. In other words, does it provide the appropriate filter permitting the qualified to be licensed and appropriately identifying those who have not attained minimum competency.

Pursuant to comments made by Dr. Hooper, the written examination will soon increase to 200 from 175 questions, and the timing will be increased proportionally to accommodate the items to be pretested. The pre-tested items will not factor into one’s score and the applicant will be unable to distinguish the items being pre-tested from the items being tested.

EXAMINATION STATISTICS
For more complete statistics showing pass rates by school, and passing rates historically, visit the BBS website at www.bbs.ca.gov.

For written examinations administered from July 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005, 947 MFT candidates were examined, and 61 percent passed. Seventy-four percent of first time takers passed, 58 percent of second time takers, 33 percent of third time takers, and 12 percent of fourth time takers passed. For written examinations administered from June 1, 2005 through November 30, 2005, 718 CSW candidates were examined, and 56 percent passed. Sixty-six percent of first time takers passed, 59 percent of second time takers, 26 percent of third time takers, and 17 percent of fourth time takers passed. For written clinical vignette examinations administered from July 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005, 932 MFT candidates were examined, and 59 percent passed. Sixty-five percent of first time takers passed, 49 percent of second time takers, 53 percent of third time takers, and 70 percent of fourth time takers passed. For written clinical vignette examinations administered from June 1, 2005 through November 30, 2005, 790 CSW candidates were examined, and 46 percent passed. Sixtyfour percent of first time takers passed, 38 percent of second time takers, 30 percent of third time takers, and 31 percent of fourth time takers passed.

DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY
The BBS is investigating ways in which it can collect demographic data about its licentiates, such as age, gender, and ethnicity. Such data, if collected, must be collected voluntarily and anonymously. The purpose would be to provide the BBS with data about its licentiates, and to ascertain its licentiates’ abilities to provide culturally and linguistically proficient services. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR THE BBS Peter Manoleas, a clinical social worker, was reelected as Chair of the BBS, and Ian Russ, a marriage and family therapist, and a new member of the Board, was elected Vice Chair.