The Truth About Washington State's New Counselor Rules And How They REALLY Affect Coaching

For two years, debate has raged surrounding the Registered Counselors in Washington State. With a new law modifying the credentialing standards of counselors, the debate begins anew. This time, it’s about how the law impacts coaches and other wellness-oriented professionals and their clients.

Everyone wants to know – what does it mean?

Some will tell you this new law means that if you’re a professional helping people with personal growth, you must seek out one of several new certifications the State of Washington has created. Although certainly an option, it’s not necessarily a requirement.

Their confusion stems from the new definition of counseling:

"Counseling" means employing any therapeutic techniques, including but not limited to social work, mental health counseling, marriage and family therapy, and hypnotherapy, for a fee that offer, assist or attempt to assist an individual or individuals in the amelioration or adjustment of mental, emotional, or behavioral problems, and includes therapeutic techniques to achieve sensitivity and awareness of self and others and the development of human potential.

Remember though - this is legal-ese. Although it may resemble ordinary language, it isn't.

(Disclaimer – I am absolutely not a lawyer; I have, however, the advantage of countless hours participating in this legislation.)

We must properly appreciate the term “therapeutic”, as in “of or relating to the treatment of disease or disorders by remedial agents or methods” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary). It is used conspicuously, describing techniques addressing mental, emotional, or behavioral problems - all areas coaches almost universally avoid without holding other credentials.

Given accepted definitions of coaching dependent on "whole and resourceful" clients, this definition of counseling doesn't describe coaching.

Even the reference to development of human potential carries the "therapeutic" modifier. It also contains a critical "and", tying it to "amelioration or adjustment of... problems" as opposed to setting it off as another alternative.

Accordingly, the language describes developing human potential in the specific context of addressing mental and emotional problems, not the everyday variety of personal growth undertaken in coaching and advice columns.

Don't take my personal interpretation at face value though; draw your own conclusions. Whether you're a provider or client, you’ll want to understand as much as you can so you can make the most appropriate choices for yourself. 

This law, which went into effect June 12, 2008, eliminates the Registered Counselor designation. Although tough to call it a credential, with the only requirements a $40 fee and a four-hour AIDS-awareness course, that ‘credential’ will begin disappearing July 1, 2009, when the state will cease issuing them. The registered counselor credential disappears altogether July 1, 2010, leaving thousands of existing registered counselors to make new choices going forward.

If the heretofore meaningless registered counselor designation is important for credibility, you may want to seek one of the new credentials created in its place. Although designed to make state involvement more meaningful, it doesn't necessarily mean everyone working with personal growth – including existing registered counselors – needs one of these new certifications.

That’s partly true because this Counselor Credentialing Standards law really tries to address more than one issue. I’ll try to untangle the ball of twine so you can follow the threads mattering to you.

Problem
Long before I became a coach in 2003, the language defining counseling in Washington State had been even more ambiguous, although I always felt there was room to interpret coaching as something different than mental health counseling.

While plenty of coaches agreed and others were simply unaware of existing laws, some believed it was safer to register as counselors. Joining them were other helping professionals who felt pressured into the registered counselor designation because of their own uncertainties of interpretation, or chose to become registered counselors because of the implied credibility.

With such a low barrier to entry, the implied credibility was easily abused by unscrupulous providers who took advantage of people believing state registration meant more than it did. It was these unscrupulous providers that the Seattle Times targeted in their 2006 License to Harm series. (“Biggest number of offenders are registered counselors”, Seattle Times, 4/24/2006)

That article exposed serious problems in the system. The general public, the Department of Health, our lawmakers, and our governor all wanted it fixed. Everyone wanted to ensure the most vulnerable populations seeking mental health services would be protected and have some kind of safety net by improving credentialing standards for anyone calling themselves a counselor and ensuring no one practiced mental health counseling who wasn’t qualified to do so.

While coaches typically don't (as coaches) practice mental health counseling and most are content to refrain from describing themselves as counselors, some professionals wanted to call themselves counselors. That is where the challenges and confusion began.

Can’t Tell Players Without a Scorecard
As lawmakers drafted legislation to protect vulnerable individuals from sexual misconduct or other abuses and eliminate misleading designations, some registered counselors worried about unintended negative consequences. Referring to an estimated 7,000 "RC's" in private practice, eliminating the registered counselor designation would "put a whole lot of people out of business," according to the president of the newly-established Washington Professional Counselors Association. ("18,000 counselors would have to requalify", Seattle Times, 2/6/2007)

Lawmakers struggled to see the problem. As one legislator put it, "If you don't get sick people well, I really don't think [you're covered by this legislation]. This humongous group that we have really isn't a health care group."

Another pointed out the public would still have access to providers if they were licensed through the Department of Licensing instead, leaving the DOH to focus on regulating evidence-based mental health care. Such comments persisted throughout the entire process.

The message seemed clear - if your work isn't a therapeutic, evidence-based model of mental health care and you're not claiming it to be that, then there is no need for the level of state oversight typically required in health care and a standard business license is sufficient to continue serving clients.

Solution
Just as clear, however, was that large numbers of counselors felt marginalized by the proposed law; they wanted the legitimacy of state oversight. The bill never made it through the 2007 legislature, yet the pressure to fix the original problem of sexual misconduct amongst counselors remained.

Even with much less time the following year to address the issues, lawmakers found language more acceptable to all parties. Governor Gregoire finally had a bill on her desk two full years after the original issue had been brought to everyone's attention.

The counseling bill signed into law in March of 2008 included the favored term "therapeutic" in describing counseling and also an important clause exempting "peer counseling". Both measures had been requested to address the concerns of wellness-oriented providers.

Higher standards were outlined for credentialing mental health counselors. Lawmakers also introduced new credentials for individuals providing counseling services not strictly therapeutic in nature providing state-conferred legitimacy for those who wanted it and meaningful state oversight.

The voluntary nature of these special certifications designed to "[protect] the title of practice" meant that those who aren't practicing a therapeutic model, don't call themselves counselors, and are content with a standard business license, are not obligated to pursue the certification.

Another important element of the new rules is the appearance of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale to define the scope of practice for the new certifications. The GAF scale provides a more objective measure for determining which populations are best served by which types of providers from the state's perspective of ensuring public safety and welfare.

The new law contains rules for involving licensed health care providers when working with individuals impaired to a GAF score of 60 or less (moderate symptoms or difficulty in functioning). There are no such restrictions for providers working with clients with GAF scores greater than 60.

Next Steps
Anyone working with individuals with diminished GAF scores will want to investigate further how these new rules apply to them. For those (like most coaches) who concentrate on working with clients with a GAF score greater than 60, you probably have more options available.

Coaches certified through the International Coach Federation (ICF) will recognize the Washington State ethics and disclosure expectations as very similar to the ICF model.

Such alignment could prove helpful when finalizing the specifics of how the state certifications will be handled and administered. The Puget Sound Coaches Association (Washington ICF chapter) and the ICF Regulatory Committee hope to be involved as the Department of Health moves forward with implementation.

If you have questions about how these rules will impact coaching or want to be involved in shaping their implementation, contact the PSCA. Consumers interested in locating qualified coaches even before the new Washington Sate certifications come into effect can be assured of competency as well as stringent ethical standards by choosing coaches credentialed through the ICF.

RESOURCES
Counselor Credentialing Standards Law

2008-HB2674 history

GAF scale  

PSCA website 

ICF website