There is a downward push on acred. status because it is more economically advantageous for some. APA-acred. for a number of decades has been the standard for both programs AND internship sites. Just in the last decade or two there has been a concerted effort to change the perception of APA-acred. status from "the bare minimum training needed" to "the gold standard"...which allows for "lesser but still sufficient" acred. levels to pop up. APA-acred. status for programs is still the standard for the vast majority of jobs and state licensure requirements, but some people have been challenging this. There has been even more pressure to change the view of APA-acred. for internships, trying to make a "different but equal" argument. Sadly, APA-acred. status is NOT hard to attain, as many subpar programs are in good standing, though for practical purposes, it is needed.
The bottom line is that APA-acred. programs are the standard, and anything less than that is asking for trouble. Some people do it, but many people regret it. For purely experimental (not clinical) psychology, licensure is not a consideration, but for anyone remotely connected to a discipline that may require licensure, it would behoove them to be elligible.
. 
