Can an unlicensed PhD be supervised by an LCSW?

[wocrunthis]

Hi there!

I'm going to be starting a research postdoc in CA this Fall. Many people teach on the side for additional income. I'm more interested in doing clinical work (i.e., individual teletherapy) on the side.

A Licensed Clinical SW (LCSW) asked me to join their practice part-time but we can't seem to find any information about how that works, or if it's even allowed. It looks like CA requires everyone unlicensed to register as a Psychological Assistant but that seems specific to being supervised by a Licensed Psychologist or Psychiatrist. Whether or not the hours count toward licensure don't concern me as much since I'll be accruing hours through my formal postdoc, albeit more slowly since it's research-focused.

It'd be great if anyone has any insight to this!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PsyDr]

No. You also can’t be supervised by a licensed plumber. Because you are neither a social worker or plumber. Licenses are profession specific.

 

[WisNeuro]

No. You also can’t be supervised by a licensed plumber. Because you are neither a social worker or plumber. Licenses are profession specific.

I don't know, California has shown that they are more than willing to race themselves to the bottom when it comes to standards in psychology. It wouldn't surprise me if they somehow allowed this.

 

[PsyDr]

I don't know, California has shown that they are more than willing to race themselves to the bottom when it comes to standards in psychology. It wouldn't surprise me if they somehow allowed this.

I got a license to drive. Can I supervise a surgeon? “Cut the red thing!”

 

[PsychPhDone]

Hi there!

I'm going to be starting a research postdoc in CA this Fall. Many people teach on the side for additional income. I'm more interested in doing clinical work (i.e., individual teletherapy) on the side.

A Licensed Clinical SW (LCSW) asked me to join their practice part-time but we can't seem to find any information about how that works, or if it's even allowed. It looks like CA requires everyone unlicensed to register as a Psychological Assistant but that seems specific to being supervised by a Licensed Psychologist or Psychiatrist. Whether or not the hours count toward licensure don't concern me as much since I'll be accruing hours through my formal postdoc, albeit more slowly since it's research-focused.

It'd be great if anyone has any insight to this!

I think it has to be a psychologist or psychiatrist.

California Code of Regulations

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[WisNeuro]

I got a license to drive. Can I supervise a surgeon? “Cut the red thing!”

Just don't cut the green wire.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

What if it was a finger/hand surgeon...I mean.. up to 10 chances!

 

[wocrunthis]

That ya'll see psychotherapy from different professions as apples to oranges says more about you and where you've trained. There's a lot of variability even within the clinical psych profession so naw your example isn't even funny. You already knew you weren't trying to be helpful, won't spell that out for you too.

 

[wocrunthis]

I think it has to be a psychologist or psychiatrist.

California Code of Regulations

www.law.cornell.edu

Thanks for the link!

 

[foreverbull]

I don't know, California has shown that they are more than willing to race themselves to the bottom when it comes to standards in psychology. It wouldn't surprise me if they somehow allowed this.

These comments are completely unnecessary.

And the answer is no, this isn’t allowed. All supervision must be done by licensed psychologists and only a portion can be done by psychiatrists (so the person has to have a licensed psychologist supervisor anyway for the remaining hours).

 

[WisNeuro]

These comments are completely unnecessary.

And the answer is no, this isn’t allowed. All supervision must be done by licensed psychologists and only a portion can be done by psychiatrists (so the person has to have a licensed psychologist supervisor anyway for the remaining hours).

Considering the damage to the profession coming out of that state, I'd say these comments and more are necessary.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It also should be said because CA is one of the most popular states that gets questions, and they have already demonstrated that they are willing to lower the standards for $$.

 

[foreverbull]

Considering the damage to the profession coming out of that state, I'd say these comments and more are necessary.

You made a comment that was not helpful to the OP and didn’t answer the question with requisite knowledge about the question asked. Instead, you took it as an opportunity offer an unsolicited opinion about the state.

I stand by my comment that it was unnecessary.

The OP wasn’t asking about whether they should get licensed in CA or somewhere else, etc. or comparing licensing standards or programs, etc.

 

[WisNeuro]

You made a comment that was not helpful to the OP and didn’t answer the question with requisite knowledge about the question asked. Instead, you took it as an opportunity offer an unsolicited opinion about the state.

I stand by my comment that it was unnecessary.

The OP wasn’t asking about whether they should get licensed in CA or somewhere else, etc. or comparing licensing standards or programs, etc.

Considering the lowering of standards in the state in various ways, it was germane to the original question on whether or not something that is definitely not ok in every other state would be ok in CA. I stand by my comment that the state has done more harm than good to the field. People are free to engage with my comments or ignore them at their own discretion. If they are hurt by my comments, there are thousands of poorly trained clinicians coming out of CA who can offer to help them out.

 

[foreverbull]

Considering the lowering of standards in the state in various ways, it was germane to the original question on whether or not something that is definitely not ok in every other state would be ok in CA. I stand by my comment that the state has done more harm than good to the field. People are free to engage with my comments or ignore them at their own discretion. If they are hurt by my comments, there are thousands of poorly trained clinicians coming out of CA who can offer to help them out.

You made a guess at the OP’s question that was incorrect. It “definitely” isn’t okay in CA either so it was unnecessary to assume or guess otherwise without the requisite knowledge.

 

[WisNeuro]

You made a guess at the OP’s question that was incorrect. It “definitely” isn’t okay in CA either so it was unnecessary to assume or guess otherwise without the requisite knowledge.

Yes, and it was very clear that it was a guess and not stated as fact. So, no issue with misinformation. If you feel there was a TOS violation, feel free to report it.

 

[calimich]

Considering the lowering of standards in the state in various ways, it was germane to the original question on whether or not something that is definitely not ok in every other state would be ok in CA. I stand by my comment that the state has done more harm than good to the field. People are free to engage with my comments or ignore them at their own discretion. If they are hurt by my comments, there are thousands of poorly trained clinicians coming out of CA who can offer to help them out.

I’d love to see the data about lowering of standards, racing to the bottom, and doing more harm than good. Will you please share your sources?

 

[WisNeuro]

I’d love to see the data about lowering of standards, racing to the bottom, and doing more harm than good. Will you please share your sources?

The sheer number of graduates pouring out of CA diploma mills is more than enough data.

 

[erg923]

Our company recently purchased an MCO that is dominant in the CA market. A large percentage of providers are atrocious on every UM metric the company has. I'm not really able to disclose any specific data though. Sorry. It's far from conclusive, but certainly @WisNeuro is not the only person to notice that something is uh, "different" out there.

 

[WisNeuro]

Our company recently purchased an MCO that is dominant in the CA market. A large percentage providers are atrocious on every UM metric the company has. I'm not really able to disclose any specific data though. Sorry.

Probably what you get when the state has to create its own "accreditation" system because it can't meet the low bar that APA sets.

 

[calimich]

The sheer number of graduates pouring out of CA diploma mills is more than enough data.

I'm not surprised by your answer and lack of sources. Seems to be a common tactic where you ask others for data but are often unwilling or unable to provide your own to back up claims. Opinions and anecdotes are interesting and certainly have a place on this board. All I wish, as you advocate for the professionalism of this board, is that you try and lead by example.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm not surprised by your answer and lack of sources. Seems to be a common tactic where you ask others for data but are often unwilling or unable to provide your own to back up claims. Opinions and anecdotes are interesting and certainly have a place on this board. All I wish, as you advocate for the professionalism of this board, is that you try and lead by example.

I love the hypocrisy here of people supposedly being all for social justice causes, but going out of their way to support a system that exploits students with dozens of completely unfunded and underfunded internships. If you want to call CAPIC accreditation "anecdotal" go nuts.

I hear your plea for professionalism, which is a very subjective thing. I'd like for people to lead by example and fight to curb the rise in diploma mills and normalizing the degradation of our profession. Looks like nether of us will be getting what we want today in those regards.

 

[calimich]

Our company recently purchased an MCO that is dominant in the CA market. A large percentage of providers are atrocious on every UM metric the company has. I'm not really able to disclose any specific data though. Sorry. It's far from conclusive, but certainly @WisNeuro is not the only person to notice that something is uh, "different" out there.

Too bad you're not able to disclose any specific data, it would be interesting to learn which metrics are being used, even if the data is inconclusive. I agree things are different out here. What are your thoughts about difference?

Here is one metric I think is useful -- we're outpacing the nation in racial and ethnic diversity of licensees and those in training.
source: HWTC_3_5 (ucsf.edu)

 

[erg923]

What are your thoughts about difference?

lack of evidence based best practice at treatment initiation, lack of SMART goals, excessive use of the Psychological/Neuropsychological Testing "evaluation services" codes, mismatch between member needs and assigned/requested levels of care. Problems everywhere. Worse in CA.

 

[foreverbull]

I love the hypocrisy here of people supposedly being all for social justice causes, but going out of their way to support a system that exploits students with dozens of completely unfunded and underfunded internships. If you want to call CAPIC accreditation "anecdotal" go nuts.

I hear your plea for professionalism, which is a very subjective thing. I'd like for people to lead by example and fight to curb the rise in diploma mills and normalizing the degradation of our profession. Looks like nether of us will be getting what we want today in those regards.

Hypocrisy? This is rich. You call out straw men and logic flaws in others and blast programs, states, theories, ideas, etc. and respond to questions when you don’t even know the answer but just to share your opinions for whatever reason or motivation. You post often and often try to get the last word in in more heated debates for whatever reason (I also notice the same folks jumping in to back you up but without saying anything of substance or they use humor to deflect from the topic or to make the topic seem ridiculous).

Yet you can’t admit to logic flaws that you yourself have used when it suits you when it’s clearly called out by others (ie the clear straw man you used in another thread about violence that fit the definition of a straw man to a “t”).

You’re not the only one; there are a group of folks who cannot tolerate taking in any feedback in here despite dishing it out on the regular. It’s absurd to hear you use the word hypocrisy after this pattern of behavior, though.

I call it as I see it, but a lot of folks remain silent even if they tend to agree, which maintains the status quo in here. Hence why I speak up.

EDIT: Our board may seem tame compared to others (it is tame compared to other sites), but that doesn’t mean people aren’t replicating the same dynamics we see in society but on a milder scale, intentional or not.

 

[WisNeuro]

Hypocrisy? This is rich. You call out straw men and logic flaws in others and blast programs, states, theories, ideas, etc. and respond to questions when you don’t even know the answer but just to share your opinions for whatever reason or motivation. You post often and often try to get the last word in in more heated debates for whatever reason (I also notice the same folks jumping in to back you up but without saying anything of substance or they use humor to deflect from the topic or to make the topic seem ridiculous).

Yet you can’t admit to logic flaws that you yourself have used when it suits you when it’s clearly called out by others (ie the clear straw man you used in another thread about violence that fit the definition of a straw man to a “t”).

You’re not the only one; there are a group of folks who cannot tolerate taking in any feedback in here despite dishing it out on the regular. It’s absurd to hear you use the word hypocrisy after this pattern of behavior, though.

I call it as I see it, but a lot of folks remain silent even if they tend to agree, which maintains the status quo in here. Hence why I speak up.

Kudos for speaking up, the forum is an open forum. You can have your views. If the data and logic behind poor EPPP pass rates, poor accredited match rates, creation of a subpar accrediting body, absurd amount of unfunded positions accredited by that body, and on and on doesn't constitute data, Well then, congrats on your willful ignorance.

As for the debating, it's essentially the essence of SDN. Take it or leave it. Plenty of us are on the same and opposing sides of many things, despite you only wanting to see what you want to see. Contrary to popular belief, it's actually possible to agree with a person about one thing and disagree with the on another point. Shocking, I know.

So, please, keep speaking up, debate does us all well, even if it's more and more of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[foreverbull]

Kudos for speaking up, the forum is an open forum. You can have your views. If the data and logic behind poor EPPP pass rates, poor accredited match rates, creation of a subpar accrediting body, absurd amount of unfunded positions accredited by that body, and on and on doesn't constitute data, Well then, congrats on your willful ignorance.

As for the debating, it's essentially the essence of SDN. Take it or leave it. Plenty of us are on the same and opposing sides of many things, despite you only wanting to see what you want to see. Contrary to popular belief, it's actually possible to agree with a person about one thing and disagree with the on another point. Shocking, I know.

So, please, keep speaking up, debate does us all well, even if it's more and more of the pot calling the kettle black.

With regard to the first part, you’re arguing something I never said or agreed with. I never commented on the first position you’re arguing. I also see a high number of programs with high acceptance rates and large cohorts as an issue in our field. So no, I’m not willfully ignorant and I suspect you and I agree in some ways on the topic, in fact.

What I didn’t agree with is a poster simply asking whether x was allowed by a state board and instead of deferring to those who actually know in this thread (which is a reasonable thing to do), you immediately use it as an opportunity to blast the state of CA yet you can’t answer the question. I see that as unnecessary, and also kind of odd. This wasn’t a discussion about whether a person should get licensed in CA or elsewhere or should go to grad school in CA, and if it had been, it would have been a very different discussion.

I stand by my comments in this thread and would hope that anyone willing to provide direct feedback about tactics, etc. would also be willing to self-reflect and take in feedback, as well. Perhaps that is more aspirational and idealistic than I would prefer, but I like the idea of leading by example as @calimich mentioned.

But yes, this is a forum in which people can chime in to say whatever they’d like, as is true for many forums.

 

[WisNeuro]

I stand by my comments in this thread and would hope that anyone willing to provide direct feedback about tactics, etc. would also be willing to self-reflect and take in feedback, as well. Perhaps that is more aspirational and idealistic than I would prefer, but I like the idea of leading by example as @calimich mentioned.

But yes, this is a forum in which people can chime in to say whatever they’d like, as is true for many forums.

Snarky comments related to the issues facing the field are fairly common on here. In this case, I see it as more than fair given the objective standards issues raised so far and its relation to the original question. Particularly as the question was answered right away. I don't see a problem with levity, particularly in association with some of the insidious, chronic problems we let persist in the field. Better than simply ignoring it.

I know we're going to have the "tone" conversation about 2-4 times a year. I also know not much will come of it from either side of the issue.

 

[psych.meout]

I’d love to see the data about lowering of standards, racing to the bottom, and doing more harm than good. Will you please share your sources?

Is it not enough for you that California is the only state that had to create its own internship accreditation system to create enough openings for students of its many diploma mills to attend sub par internships that aren't APA accredited?

Too bad you're not able to disclose any specific data, it would be interesting to learn which metrics are being used, even if the data is inconclusive. I agree things are different out here. What are your thoughts about difference?

Here is one metric I think is useful -- we're outpacing the nation in racial and ethnic diversity of licensees and those in training.
source: HWTC_3_5 (ucsf.edu)

In theory, yes, this is a good thing, but it has to be taken in context. Those figures are in the context of diploma mills and CAPIC internships, both exploiting those racial and ethnic minorities. I wouldn't brag about that.

 

[cara susanna]

I don't know, California has shown that they are more than willing to race themselves to the bottom when it comes to standards in psychology. It wouldn't surprise me if they somehow allowed this.

Accreditation system aside, CA licensure is actually VERY rigorous. I think maybe because they do have to weed out some people.

 

[WisNeuro]

Accreditation system aside, CA licensure is actually VERY rigorous. I think maybe because they do have to weed out some people.

Any figures on how many people apply and are denied? The fact that they allow CAPIC is pretty egregious. It's exploitation, easily by many of these sites. I can imagine the process itself may be onerous, but accepting a lower standard of training is the issue.

 

[cara susanna]

Any figures on how many people apply and are denied? The fact that they allow CAPIC is pretty egregious. It's exploitation, easily by many of these sites. I can imagine the process itself may be onerous, but accepting a lower standard of training is the issue.

I'm not sure about that, but the requirements are pretty hefty. In addition to the educational courses, you also need to pass the CPLEE and I know several psychologists--from good training programs--who failed that test on their first try.

If we're talking about what kind of training they allow, that I'm not sure, but they require some pretty substantial supervision documentation. I've gone through licensure in two other states and neither had the same level of requirements.

 

[psych.meout]

Accreditation system aside, CA licensure is actually VERY rigorous. I think maybe because they do have to weed out some people.

Any figures on how many people apply and are denied? The fact that they allow CAPIC is pretty egregious. It's exploitation, easily by many of these sites. I can imagine the process itself may be onerous, but accepting a lower standard of training is the issue.

How convenient for all of California's diploma mills that students only really find out that their training was so bad when they go to get licensed, you know, after they've already paid the diploma mills hundreds of thousands of dollars and provided a year of cheap labor to crappy CAPIC internship sites.

 

[cara susanna]

How convenient for all of California's diploma mills that students only really find out that their training was so bad when they go to get licensed, you know, after they've already paid the diploma mills hundreds of thousands of dollars and provided a year of cheap labor to crappy CAPIC internship sites.

I'm not defending the placement of the bottleneck, I'm just saying that it isn't true that CA licensure (which is what the OP was asking about) specifically has no standards.

 

[PsyDr]

Man, people love California.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

I'm not sure about that, but the requirements are pretty hefty. In addition to the educational courses, you also need to pass the CPLEE and I know several psychologists--from good training programs--who failed that test on their first try.

If we're talking about what kind of training they allow, that I'm not sure, but they require some pretty substantial supervision documentation. I've gone through licensure in two other states and neither had the same level of requirements.

They are also a state which requires a postdoc, unlike several other.

I think they also require additional coursework in addition to APA requirements (e.g., aging, addictions, abuse, ....).

The CPLEE is also a several hour test from what I've heard (a few years back), unlike other states that let you do a quick jurisprudence quiz and in online/open book style.

 

[calimich]

Man, people love California.

And dislike hypocrisy, know-it-alls, and whataboutism.

 

[WisNeuro]

How about pots and kettles?

 

[cara susanna]

They are also a state which requires a postdoc, unlike several other.

I think they also require additional coursework in addition to APA requirements (e.g., aging, addictions, abuse, ....).

The CPLEE is also a several hour test from what I've heard (a few years back), unlike other states that let you do a quick jurisprudence quiz and in online/open book style.

They do require certain coursework, including a substance abuse course which specifically has to be offered by an academic institution. You are also correct about the CPLEE.

 

[ccool]

How about pots and kettles?

Lol, Tu quoque - Wikipedia

I personally just get very confused when people offer opinions as facts without clarifying which is which.

Thanks @calimich for asking for sources to these claims. And thanks to those who have given more information regarding issues related to training and regarding licensure requirements for the state of California.

The licensure requirements that have been detailed was the gist of my understanding as well. The extra requirements for California is actually what led me from further pursuing an interest in moving there; I would need more training than my current state and other states of interest to qualify. Thus, I was confused and thought I had read the wrong thing or something when I saw posters on this board frequently commenting on the poor standards related to practicing psychology in California. But now I understand that unlike other states (?) California developed an additional accreditation system to manage the influx of psychology professional schools. And that the creation of the accreditation program and the number of expensive, unfunded, arguably exploitative training programs is the evidence posters use for their claims about California lowering standards and racing to the bottom, etc. And that when they say that they’re referring to their thoughts regarding training in psychology and not practicing in psychology.

thanks all!

 

[WisNeuro]

Lol, Tu quoque - Wikipedia

I personally just get very confused when people offer opinions as facts without clarifying which is which.

Thanks @calimich for asking for sources to these claims. And thanks to those who have given more information regarding issues related to training and regarding licensure requirements for the state of California.

The licensure requirements that have been detailed was the gist of my understanding as well. The extra requirements for California is actually what led me from further pursuing an interest in moving there; I would need more training than my current state and other states of interest to qualify. Thus, I was confused and thought I had read the wrong thing or something when I saw posters on this board frequently commenting on the poor standards related to practicing psychology in California. But now I understand that unlike other states (?) California developed an additional accreditation system to manage the influx of psychology professional schools. And that the creation of the accreditation program and the number of expensive, unfunded, arguably exploitative training programs is the evidence posters use for their claims about California lowering standards and racing to the bottom, etc. And that when they say that they’re referring to their thoughts regarding training in psychology and not practicing in psychology.

thanks all!

I gave plenty of data to back my claims up, adding to your hypocrisy and lack of insight. Throw out all of the meaningless buzzwords you want, doesn't change the facts.

 

[ccool]

I gave plenty of data to back my claims up, adding to your hypocrisy and lack of insight. Throw out all of the meaningless buzzwords you want, doesn't change the facts.

Did you read what I wrote? I said thank you to posters who gave information about training (which includes you) and those who gave information about licensure. I also detailed my understanding of your argument. I’m confused what’s missing? Or what the problem is that you’re having?

 

[WisNeuro]

Did you read what I wrote? I said thank you to posters who gave information about training (which includes you) and those who gave information about licensure. I also detailed my understanding of your argument. I’m confused what’s missing? Or what the problem is that you’re having?

I did indeed, but I don't buy the feigned ignorance.

 

[ccool]

I did indeed, but I don't buy the feigned ignorance.

Lololol. Ok. As you wish.

i have no idea what has led you to any conclusion about my thought process or motivations behind what I said besides genuineness, but that is a-ok with me! Lol

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Mod Note (Pre-Emptively): Let's try to return to the original topic before we get too far astray.