California BOP Proposed "CPD" requirements?

[foreverbull]

Is anyone keeping an eye on the proposed changes from the CE model to the "CPD" model that requires service, teaching, supervision, training, publication, service on boards/associations, etc. in order to renew licensure?

Title 16 CCR sections 1381.9, 1397.60, 1397.61, 1397.62, 1397.67—Continuing Professional
Development Status: Initial review phase. This regulatory package does the following: Changes the continuing education guidelines and requirements that must be completed by licensed psychologists from the continuing education (CE) model to the broader continuing professional development (CPD) model.

This would be a logistical nightmare for all 11,000 practicing California psychologists ("can we please be forced to take time to do more service/activities outside of our full-time jobs for free in order to renew our licenses?") and in my opinion, is a vast overreach of the BOP in trying to exert control over psychologists and their professional activities. It is still in the review phase, but is making its way up. I'm curious to know why this is being pushed.

Anyone have any thoughts or reactions?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

Is anyone keeping an eye on the proposed changes from the CE model to the "CPD" model that requires service, teaching, supervision, training, publication, service on boards/associations, etc. in order to renew licensure?

Title 16 CCR sections 1381.9, 1397.60, 1397.61, 1397.62, 1397.67—Continuing Professional
Development Status: Initial review phase. This regulatory package does the following: Changes the continuing education guidelines and requirements that must be completed by licensed psychologists from the continuing education (CE) model to the broader continuing professional development (CPD) model.

This would be a logistical nightmare for all 11,000 practicing California psychologists ("can we please be forced to take time to do more service/activities outside of our full-time jobs for free in order to renew our licenses?") and in my opinion, is a vast overreach of the BOP in trying to exert control over psychologists and their professional activities. It is still in the review phase, but is making its way up. I'm curious to know why this is being pushed.

Anyone have any thoughts or reactions?

"With the exception of 100% ABPP Board Certification, a licensee shall accrue hours during each renewal period from at least two (2) of the four (4) CPD activity categories: Professional Activities; Academic; Sponsored Continuing Education; and Board Certification. Unless otherwise specified, for any activity for which the licensee wishes to claim credit, no less than one (1) hour credit may be claimed and no more than the maximum number of allowable hours, as set forth in subsection (f), may be claimed for each renewal period."

“Attendance at a California Board of Psychology Meeting”

WTF?!!!

 

[boomshakalaka]

Is anyone keeping an eye on the proposed changes from the CE model to the "CPD" model that requires service, teaching, supervision, training, publication, service on boards/associations, etc. in order to renew licensure?

Title 16 CCR sections 1381.9, 1397.60, 1397.61, 1397.62, 1397.67—Continuing Professional
Development Status: Initial review phase. This regulatory package does the following: Changes the continuing education guidelines and requirements that must be completed by licensed psychologists from the continuing education (CE) model to the broader continuing professional development (CPD) model.

This would be a logistical nightmare for all 11,000 practicing California psychologists ("can we please be forced to take time to do more service/activities outside of our full-time jobs for free in order to renew our licenses?") and in my opinion, is a vast overreach of the BOP in trying to exert control over psychologists and their professional activities. It is still in the review phase, but is making its way up. I'm curious to know why this is being pushed.

Anyone have any thoughts or reactions?

Doesn't really seem like that big of a deal to me. Sounds like they are just being a little more specific in the types of ways you can earn PD credits. This might be trickier for folks in strictly PP settings but in larger institutional settings it sounds like it would be business as usual.