The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs: Promoting Quality in Counselor Education

What is Accreditation?

Accreditation, as it exists in relation to higher education, is a quality assurance and enhancement mechanism for educational institutions, colleges or schools, and/or academic programs. A central factor in accreditation in the United States is that it is a form of self-regulation, consisting of intensive self-study and an external peer review process. Both of these accreditation-related activities occur in relation to a public set of standards of quality, policies, and procedures developed by an accrediting body through consultation with its respective higher education and professional communities (Council for Higher Education Accreditation [CHEA], 2006b).

Who Accredits?

Unlike many other countries, the United States does not have a ministry of education or other centralized authority exerting national control over IHEs and assuming responsibility for quality control. Although there is a federal department of education, it is not intended to function in such a capacity over higher education. A certain degree of control over IHEs is maintained by the states in which the IHEs are operating, but generally institutions are afforded a fair degree of independence and autonomy (U.S. Department of Education [USDE], 2011). “To ensure that education provided by programs and institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality” (Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors [ASPA], 2002, para. 2), the IHEs and related groups developed the self-regulatory process of accreditation.

In the United States, there are different types of accreditors, each focusing on different segments of higher education. These accreditors are private, nongovernmental organizations.

Regional accreditors accredit entire IHEs. The majority of the IHEs accredited by regional accreditors are degree granting and nonprofit. Currently, there are six regional accreditors, each accrediting IHEs in a respective region (New England, Middle States, Southern, North Central, Northwest, Western) consisting of a particular cluster of states.

National faith-related accreditors (e.g., Association for Biblical Higher Education Commission on Accreditation, Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools Accreditation Commission) similarly accredit entire IHEs. The IHEs accredited by these accreditors are all religiously affiliated or doctrinally based.

National career-related accreditors (e.g., Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts and Sciences, Inc.), also operate on a national basis and accredit entire IHEs. Major differences with the regional and faith-related accreditors, however, lie in that the majority of IHEs accredited by national career-related accreditors are single-purpose (e.g., cosmetology, information technology), nondegree granting, and for-profit.

Programmatic accreditors (e.g., CACREP, Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Management Education) generally operate on a national basis and accredit specialized preparation programs and some single-purpose IHEs (CHEA, 2008).

There can be overlap among the domains of these different types of accreditors. For example, a university may hold institutional accreditation from one of the regional accreditors and have an accredited college of business or education, which in turn has a number of different academic programs accredited by different programmatic accreditors. Occasionally, an academic program may hold dual accreditation by different programmatic accreditors.

Who Is Accredited?

In 2008–2009, more than 7,400 IHEs held accredited status through institutional accreditors (i.e., regional, national faith-related, and national career-related accreditors). Of these accredited IHEs, 3,040 held accredited status through a regional accreditor, 462 held accredited status through a national faith-related accreditor, and 3,933 held accredited status through a national career-related accreditor. Collectively, these institutions enrolled over 23,714,010 students. In 2009, 21,068 programs and freestanding institutions held accredited status through programmatic accreditors. These programs accounted for approximately 3,428,591 enrolled students (CHEA, 2009).

Who Accredits Accreditors?

The equivalent process to accreditation for accreditors is called recognition. Currently, there are two groups that grant recognition to accreditors: CHEA and USDE. The USDE is a department of the federal government, whereas CHEA is a private, nonprofit membership organization of IHEs.

Some accreditors hold recognition through either CHEA or USDE, whereas others hold recognition through both. Some accreditors may not be eligible for accreditation through either. The ability of the USDE to regulate accreditors stems from its oversight responsibility for the administration of federal student aid programs and other federal funds for higher education under the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA, 2008). USDE recognition is only required for accreditors who play a gatekeeping role in relation to these funds, although an accreditor may seek recognition status if it can demonstrate a clear federal interest related to its accrediting activities (e.g., eligibility for particular USDE grant funds is contingent upon an applicant's enrollment in an accredited program). For an accreditor to be eligible for CHEA recognition, more than 50% of the institutions or programs it accredits must be degree granting (CHEA, 2002). CACREP holds its recognition status through CHEA. It is not eligible for USDE recognition because it does not function in a gatekeeping capacity for federal funds.

The recognition processes of both CHEA and USDE involve an examination of the quality and effectiveness of the accrediting organizations seeking recognition. Similar to the accreditation process, the recognition process involves the development of a self-study by the applying accrediting organization against a published set of standards and then a subsequent review by the recognition decision-making body. CHEA holds accreditors accountable for six standards: (a) advance academic quality; (b) demonstrate accountability; (c) encourage, where appropriate, self-scrutiny and planning for change and needed improvement; (d) use appropriate and fair practices in decision making; (e) demonstrate ongoing review of accreditation practice; and (f) possess sufficient resources (CHEA, 2009).

What Role Do Accreditors Have in Relation to Federal Student Aid Programs and Funds?

The U.S. federal government, unlike the governmental structure in some other countries, does not have direct statutory authority over higher education; therefore, the federal government does not directly accredit IHEs. However, the HEOA did establish a requirement for the U.S. Secretary of Education “to publish a list of nationally recognized [emphasis added] accrediting agencies that the Secretary determines to be reliable authorities as to the quality of education or training provided by the institutions of higher education and the higher education programs” (USDE, 2011, “Overview of Accreditation,” para. 2). In the 1950s, the federal government engaged accreditors as gatekeepers for federal funds for student aid and other higher education programs. Thus, an IHE had to be accredited by a federally recognized accreditor for its students and programs to be eligible for federal funds. This is a significant role for accreditors, and one that is the subject of the current political climate for accreditors and IHEs because these federal funds now amount to more than $100 billion annually (CHEA, 2006a).

Who Are Some of the Accreditors in the Allied Mental Health Professions?

CACREP. CACREP is the accrediting organization for counseling and related educational programs (e.g., the International Registry of Counsellor Education Programs). CACREP currently accredits entry-level counseling programs with the following specialty emphases: addiction counseling; career counseling; clinical mental health counseling; marriage, couple, and family counseling; school counseling; and student affairs and college counseling. CACREP also accredits doctoral-level counselor education and supervision programs.

American Psychological Association-Commission on Accreditation (APA-CoA). The APA-CoA is the accrediting body for doctoral-level programs and internship and postdoctoral residency programs in professional psychology. APA-CoA accredits programs in clinical psychology, counseling psychology, school psychology, and combined professional-scientific psychology (CHEA, 2009).

Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education (COAMFTE). COAMFTE accredits master's-degree, doctoral-degree, and postgraduate clinical training programs in marriage and family therapy (American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, n.d.).

Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). CSWE accredits baccalaureate and master's-level programs in social work (CHEA, 2009).

Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE). CORE accredits master's degree programs in rehabilitation counselor education and operates a registry program for undergraduate programs in rehabilitation and disability studies. CORE represents the combined interests of five professional rehabilitation organizations (CORE, 2011).

Why Are There Multiple Accreditors?

As of January 2012, eight regional accrediting associations, four national faith-related accrediting organizations, seven national career-related accrediting organizations, and 68 programmatic accrediting organizations held recognition through CHEA, the USDE, or both (CHEA, 2012). The question may be asked, why so many different accreditors? Or, more specifically and of importance to the counseling profession, why are there multiple accreditors for mental health practitioners?

For the most part, the answer, in relation to specialized accreditors, is relatively straightforward. The different accreditors are representative of different professions or disciplines or have a particular focus within a particular discipline (e.g., the National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission and the Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs). The same answer is true for the mental health professions, with separate accrediting bodies for the professions of counseling, psychology, social work, and marriage and family therapists. Ritchie (1990), in his review of the criteria of a profession and the ongoing professionalization of counseling, included the presence of an accrediting body as a critical hallmark of a profession, along with but not limited to membership associations, licensure and certification, and a code of ethics. Despite the fact that the multiple mental health professions share a similar body of knowledge, they are distinct in terms of the philosophies underlying the application of this knowledge base, the accrediting bodies addressing the required education elements, the membership associations, licenses and certifications, and the codes of ethics. Discipline-specific accreditors help ensure that a profession is able to self-regulate the educational standards for entry into the profession as opposed to having groups outside the profession dictate these standards.

One criticism periodically raised is that the presence of multiple accreditors is confusing for consumers. Although there may be some small element of truth in this assertion, there is also the confusion that abounds when consumers are faced with a broad array of educational opportunities, difficulty in judging the quality of these opportunities, and challenges in determining the ultimate path to being able to practice in their chosen profession. Accreditors have a specified scope of accreditation and are able to clearly communicate to consumers the scope of accreditation, the types of programs they accredit, and the standards that serve as the basis for accreditation decisions. Psychology, as a discipline, is very clear that it accredits doctoral-level psychology programs and training facilities in specified specialty areas (e.g., counseling psychology, clinical psychology). CACREP is very clear that it accredits master's-level and doctoral-level counseling programs aligned with the profession of counseling, as indicated by the educational preparation, membership affiliations, and professional activities of program faculty and students.

The counseling landscape does get murky, however, because in the counseling profession, accreditation is a voluntary process; licensure boards, some nonaccredited programs, and even some membership associations use terminology of equivalency with CACREP accreditation, even though there is no basis or procedure for determining what such an equivalency entails; each state has its own rules and regulations for the licensure of professional counselors based on different educational and clinical requirements; there is little to no portability of licenses from state to state, and even experienced counselors can experience difficulties in transitioning from one state to another; and individuals with degrees in a related field are, in some states, allowed to be licensed as professional counselors despite the presence of a discipline-specific license for their field. This is where much of the confusion for consumers lies. On the latter point, for example, many master's-level psychology programs indicate that they are counseling programs because their students often can be licensed as professional counselors. However, in many instances, the program faculty members in such programs are psychologists; the faculty members maintain primary professional associations with the psychology profession in terms of memberships, licensure, advocacy, and other professional activities; and the students graduate having received many mixed messages about professional identity and professional responsibilities. The confusion in these instances does not lie with the accrediting bodies. CACREP does not accredit psychology programs, and psychology is adamant as a profession that licensure for psychologists should be at the doctoral level. The issue of the licensing of master's-level psychologists is often laid at CACREP's door, whereas in reality it is a professional issue requiring clarity and attention from the profession of psychology and psychology licensing boards.

Do Accreditors Collaborate?

Accreditors do not collaborate on business matters, such as the setting of fees, but they do collaborate on determining what constitutes best practices in accreditation and when there are combined interests in terms of higher education or accreditation policy or issues. One example of a recent collaborative effort was the active involvement of accrediting organizations and higher education groups in the negotiated rule-making process for the most recent reauthorization of the HEOA (2008). Another example is the development by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (2002), a regional accreditor, of detailed processes for the conduct of collaborative reviews with other accreditors, agencies, and organizations.

The listing of membership and policy groups with interests in higher education is quite extensive, with groups representing accreditors, registrars, college professors, student personnel administrators, governing boards, trustees, business officers, financial aid officers, testing groups, Christian colleges, community colleges, land-grant colleges, and so on. CACREP was one of the founding members of one such organization, ASPA, a membership organization of programmatic accreditors. ASPA works to educate consumers about programmatic accreditation, advocates for the interests and needs of programmatic accreditors within the broader accreditation and higher education arenas, and provides professional development and collaborative forums for programmatic accreditors to promote accreditation and organizational best practices (ASPA, 2011).

Accrediting organizations may collaborate or cooperate in relation to their accrediting processes as well. Some accreditors arrange joint or concurrent visits with other accrediting organizations if an institution has multiple programs under review by different accreditors or, perhaps, by an accreditor and a state-level review group. The extent of this cooperation may vary from shared team members to coordination of visit dates for concurrent visits. These efforts are intended to help minimize the administrative and financial costs to institutions when possible. However, these determinations always must be balanced with the primary quality assurance role of the accrediting body. For example, as CACREP transitioned to the implementation of the 2009 Standards (CACREP, 2009b), which included several notable differences from prior versions (most notably the inclusion of outcomes-based program area standards), a decision was made to suspend joint or concurrent visits until the CACREP site teams had been able to adjust effectively to the new requirements of reviewing the assessment structures of programs seeking accreditation.

Professional Issues and CACREP

As the specialized professional accreditor that develops the educational standards for the counseling profession and that accredits entry- and doctoral-level counselor preparation programs, CACREP is involved in many of the professional issues of the counseling profession. With this involvement often comes great scrutiny and criticism, especially when decisions are made that are not in line with the direction that certain individuals or groups would prefer the profession goes. However, 30 years of experience has garnered CACREP a high level of recognition and respect, both within and from outside the counseling profession, and this recognition, in turn, has contributed to positive recognition for counselors as mental health service providers. Several professional issues of particular import in relation to CACREP in the current professional environment are the recognition of counselors as independent service providers in several large federal programs, the potential linkage of counseling licensure to CACREP accreditation and the portability of counselor licenses, the tightening of professional identity requirements in the CACREP Standards, and the specificity of the CACREP Standards. These issues have all been occurring within the context of a fragile U.S. economy.

The Recognition of Counselors in Federal Programs

In the past year, counselors have gained important recognition as service providers in several large federal programs, including the U.S. Department of Defense Substance Abuse Program, the VA, and TRICARE. Despite these achievements, these gains in recognition for counselors have been controversial among certain segments of mental health care providers because the government groups, in part due to the recommendation of an Institute of Medicine (2010) report, linked this recognition to graduation from a CACREP-accredited program, among other things. This recognition, although it has positive implications for counselors and CACREP, has resulted in controversy. Groups that have felt disenfranchised by the federal decisions have directed some of their ire at CACREP, often inadvertently believing that CACREP lobbied for this recognition even though CACREP does not have advocacy staff. However, the reality is that the federal government linked these decisions to accreditation in some cases because this is a requirement for other recognized disciplines (in the case of the VA) or because it wanted assurance of standardization and high quality that policy makers did not believe could be achieved with a reliance on counselor licensure due to what the Institute of Medicine viewed as significant variation in requirements across states.

These decisions are important for counselor preparation programs because they represent an important rationale for seeking or maintaining accreditation in difficult economic times that can be presented to administrative decision makers. From an organizational standpoint, CACREP has been fielding interest queries from a large number of new and nonaccredited programs and is developing effective organization growth strategies to ensure it continues to provide high-quality accreditation services.

CACREP and Counselor Licensure

Currently no states require graduation from a CACREP-accredited program. New Jersey recently sought to change its regulations to include such a requirement, but this ultimately was not achieved. Ohio is currently working to achieve such a linkage in its regulations and has included certain measures to address areas that were deemed problematic during New Jersey's efforts. Despite the lack of an overt linkage in terms of requirements, 27 states do mention CACREP in their licensure rules and regulations, and 15 of the remaining states, while not mentioning CACREP's name, refer indirectly to the CACREP core curricular areas.

Perhaps the biggest challenge in the area of counselor licensure is the lack of portability of licenses across states, in part due to the differences that exist among states in terms of requirements for licensure and who can be licensed as a professional counselor. Even counselors who have been licensed in one or more states have encountered significant difficulties getting licensed when they move to a different state. There are 50 different sets of rules and regulations. The CACREP requirements represent one of the few standardizing elements and help maximize the chances that a graduate from a CACREP-accredited program has met all or the majority of the educational and predegree clinical experiences required in most states for licensure eligibility.

In relation to this, a challenge that CACREP faces is that some states have included language requiring graduation from a CACREP-accredited program or a program that is equivalent. This in turn leads to many nonaccredited programs using equivalency-like terms on their websites, connoting a relationship to CACREP that does not in reality exist and that does a disservice to the programs that have committed time, energy, and resources to being an accredited program. This equivalency language poses many problems for CACREP, counseling programs, and consumers. The intent generally is to connote that a program has a CACREP-like curriculum in place. The reference is most often to the core curriculum, as opposed to the program area curricula, for which accredited programs must now demonstrate a means of documenting and assessing student learning outcomes. An assertion of equivalency has no associated peer review process validating it. Perhaps most important in regard to this topic, the CACREP Standards address many more areas than just curriculum, including but not limited to program professional identity, financial support for programs, core and adjunct faculty and supervisor qualifications, supervision type and duration, student-to-faculty and supervision ratios, and student and faculty support resources (Bobby & Urofsky, 2009). The CACREP Board has asserted that there is no legitimate usage of the term equivalent in relation to CACREP accreditation (CACREP, 2009a).

Economic Conditions

There is no question that the United States is experiencing a very challenging economic climate and that this greatly affects colleges and universities in terms of their ability to manage tuition and operations costs, faculty and staff resources, and enrollments. This economic climate affects CACREP as well. For example, in 2008, rising fuel costs resulted in travel costs that constituted more than half of the fees CACREP charged for site visitors, necessitating an adjustment of these fees (Bobby, 2008).

CACREP operates as an independent organization, so rising costs directly affect operations and are not mitigated by a larger parent organization. CACREP does monitor the impact of the economic climate on accredited programs. The CACREP Board has determined that it will consider specific requests from individual programs but has not enacted policies addressing economic conditions for programs as a whole. This is for a number of reasons. The economic conditions have not affected all institutions in the same way. While some programs are struggling, others are thriving and many new programs are being developed even in these difficult times. Most important, there are quality issues to consider. The standards help to ensure that programs have a minimum number of core faculty members in place, directing the program and teaching and advising students. Feedback from some programs has indicated that it is their accredited status that has helped them weather the economic conditions and to be considered a priority for resources by administrators. The recent federal decisions have lent further support to accredited programs and those programs seeking to become accredited despite the economic climate.

Professional Identity Requirements in the CACREP Standards

CACREP is an accreditor for the counseling programs aligned with the profession of counseling, as indicated by the educational preparation, membership affiliations, and professional activities of program faculty and students. Challenges associated with the number of master's-level psychology programs seeking accreditation and individuals with degrees in related disciplines teaching in counseling programs without any or limited engagement with the counseling profession have led to a tightening of the professional identity requirements in the CACREP 2009 Standards. This decision probably more than any other has resulted in a backlash against CACREP, primarily from individuals with psychology degrees or teaching in programs with a primarily psychology identity. However, this is in part because of an incomplete understanding of the requirements in the standards that are future oriented.

The core faculty requirements stipulate that individuals with related doctoral degrees (e.g., counseling psychology) who have prior full-time teaching experience in a counselor education program and who actively identify with the counseling profession (i.e., active engagement in professional activities with ACA and/or its divisions) remain eligible as core faculty in CACREP-accredited programs throughout their careers. New core faculty hires, however, without any full-time teaching experience in counselor education programs prior to July 1, 2013, must have a doctoral degree in counselor education and supervision and actively identify with the counseling profession.

The core faculty requirements in the 2009 CACREP Standards establish, in the future, the counselor education and supervision doctoral degree as the terminal degree for the counseling profession. The aim is not to disenfranchise those faculty members who currently teach in counselor education programs but hold degrees from related disciplines, if they actively identify with and participate in the counseling profession as defined within the CACREP Standards. These faculty members, if they can document this ongoing alignment in their professional affiliations and activities, will remain eligible for employment as core faculty members in CACREP-accredited counselor education programs throughout their careers.

The arguments that these standards prohibit interdisciplinary dialogue or individuals from other disciplines from contributing to counselor education are also inaccurate distractions. In each helping profession, and most other disciplines, the norm is for individuals who serve as the primary educators in preparation programs to be educated in that discipline, identify with that discipline, and hold credentials in that discipline. In the CACREP Standards, this expectation is bolstered by an additional requirement that in any calendar year, at least half of the credit hours of required courses must be taught by individuals qualified to serve as core faculty.

The Specificity of the CACREP Standards

The CACREP Standards are numerous and specific. There are approximately 165 core standards and substandards (including core curricular standards) and another 60 or more standards and substandards per specialty area. The standards address not only core and specialty curricula content but also institutional support for the program, training facilities, clinical and supervision requirements, faculty and supervisor qualifications, student and faculty support, and program identity. The CACREP Standards, by their very nature as standards for professional preparation programs, are detailed at a level that is significantly different from that of accreditors that accredit at the school/college or curricular level, where the unit of analysis is much broader.

The CACREP Standards are, however, revised on a 7-year basis, and the revision committees are consistently charged to examine the standards for areas of potential redundancy, lists within standards, and overprescriptiveness. There are only a few standards where numbers are specified (i.e., core faculty, supervision and full-time equivalency ratios, core faculty credit delivery). The remaining standards are primarily descriptive in nature.

Although it is important to recognize the number of standards and to regularly review them for the aforementioned issues and for continued relevancy, the standards are not unattainable. Six hundred programs are accredited at 264 institutions. In a quote attributed to Pablo Picasso, “If there were only one truth, you couldn't paint a hundred canvases on the same theme” (Brainy Quotes, n.d., para. 9). The CACREP Standards, despite the number and specificity of standards, yield many different program canvases. Ritchie and Bobby (2011) asserted that CACREP accredits programs of all kinds, “large, small, doctoral, master's only, public, private, faith-based, and on-line. Programs accredited by CACREP are truly representative of counselor preparation programs nationwide” (pp. 51–52).