Mental Health Counselor Licensing: National or State Level

Mental Health Counselor Licensing: National or State Level

In the discussion of national licensure vs. state licensure the main points that are in contention revolve around who should set the following standards and where responsibility for enforcing said standards should lie:

• Defining the counseling occupation as a profession

• Defining the scope of practice and determining who can and cannot offer services

• Requirements for training, experience, examinations and titles

• Regulatory power

• Funds collection

Frankly, the last two are the biggest factors in the discussion (tug-o-war) between national vs. state control. The pecking order for laws is Federal ( State ( County ( City. Federal laws are set at the lowest acceptable standard for public/private behaviors/standards, followed with further restrictions by the State, then County and then local/City (as long as they do not conflict with guaranteed freedoms as stated in the US Constitution and stare decisis). Federal laws have supremacy over all other laws. The State may regulate behaviors/standards with more laws that further restrict freedoms; but, may not enact laws that allow for greater freedoms. For example: Federal Law that mandates jail time for guilty adjudication for specific crime ( State law may not lower the penalty for the same crime as described by Federal Law, but may require additional penalties.

If a Federal standard is put into place, then State Laws would only be able to further restrict the profession’s scope, requirements, etc.; however the final word on licensure and regulation would belong to the Federal government. Thus, any decisions made on the State level regarding regulation/enforcement of penaltites could be overturned by an escalated complaint taken to the US Supreme Court. On the positive side of Federal regulation, there is public knowledge and confidence that the therapists in their State are certified as credentialed by the Federal...