CACREP Accreditation Opposition

[Goobernut]

So while I was googling for something else un-related, I found this site:

www.concernedcounselors.org

It is an organization that is against the current push of requiring counseling schools to be CACREP accredited. While I see their point, I don't necessarily agree. It is interesting to view the opposite side of the story, and maybe they have a point about the implementation of this accreditation push.

I'd also just like to point out all the Tricare articles on the above site for the random posters on the internet that keep telling me I'm wrong about Tricare and CACREP accreditation... It's also handy for those LPCs who are wanting to get grandfathered in to Tricare, because it has a lot of information on that process.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[wesleysmith]

Interesting read. I do find it odd that accreditation is voluntary. This quote made me chuckle a bit:
"Our graduate programs in counseling should try to transcend the pettiness, the artificial divisions, the unproductive turf battles, and the narrow focus of other mental health training programs... "
They're not wrong, but I don't think it's a cogent argument against unified accreditation. Those are the kind of things that, well petty, define what the profession can and cannot do, i.e., their function, no?

 

[Goobernut]

Yeah, I don't agree with "minimal standards are problematic" approach.

 

[RoadToThePhD]

very interesting website. I am a new graduate from a CACREP program so my response will have some bias. But I believe that the effort to unify our profession is crucial and long awaited. As the website states, we have so many acronyms, organizations, boards, licenses, etc.. Perhaps CACREP will help with unifying our profession and allowing for national standardization and reciprocity of our license.
That being said- it is in no way fair for seasoned counselors to have any less privilege than any other counselor. There should be a designation or some sort of way to grandfather counselors who have been working in the field for years.

 

[PsychMajorUndergrad18]

In my opinion, the counseling professions need to have a board, such as CACREP, to make sure that every counseling student has the same or similiar training. I am glad that CACREP is pushing for every program to meet their standards because it will result in well trained counselors and not crappy counselors with minimal training

 

[IncognitoCats]

Ok, so everyone familiar with the field might already know some obvious answer to this but I am quite clueless here about the issue CACREP has with faculties that are comprised primarily (but not solely) by psychologists. ANY graduate programs housed in psychology and counseling psychology departments are automatically disqualified from accreditation, according to CACREP. Why? Because of this anti-psychology stance, the rival Masters in Psychology and Counseling Accreditation Council - MPCAC (and MCAC) - emerged in 1995. MPCAC, not CACREP, accredit NYU and Columbia's MA programs in counseling, for example, whose doctoral programs in the same specialization (counseling), taught by the same staff - are accredited by the APA. So why would CACREP freeze out psychologists, accepting only programs with staff that primarily identify as counselors? I'm genuinely confused. Surely there are many excellent teachers and therapists who identify as psychologists and counselors, and their qualifications and experience reflect excellence in both competencies? In my search for answers to this quandary of mine, I came across this study on CACREP v MPCAC in terms of each state's laws for licensing, which might be of interest.